Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Northern Ireland

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the progress of military operations in Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Roy Mason): There was considerable progress during 1974 permitting the withdrawal without relief of three major units to match the gradual reduction in violence achieved by the operations of the security forces.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to our troops our admiration of their courage and devotion which has brought about the present cessation of firing? At the same time, does he agree that any kind of relaxation of vigilance at this time, while human, would be dangerous and might frustrate the outcome we all desire?

Mr. Mason: I am obliged to the hon. Member and I am sure that Her Majesty's Forces in Northern Ireland will appreciate what he has said. They have been very skilful and at the same time very diplomatic and they have done a remarkable job. In the past 12 months they have arrested 1,367 terrorists and recovered 1,260 weapons, 150,000 rounds of ammunition and 24 tons of explosives. During the course of the ceasefire they have maintained patrols, but not as many, they have managed to carry on with the security on the border and they have managed to keep up a regular search of vehicles and, if necessary, houses and persons.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On behalf of my colleagues, I should like to identify myself with the remarks by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) concerning the courage and determination of Her Majesty's Forces in Northern Ireland. Is the Secretary of State in a position to tell the House what general orders are now prevailing among troops during the cease-fire in Northern Ireland? Will he say what troops, if any, have left Northern Ireland since the cease-fire?

Mr. Mason: I am obliged to the hon. Member for what he said. No troops have been withdrawn during the ceasefire. They have adopted a rôle of vigilance but on a low profile. The hon. Member and the House will have to await what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has to say at the conclusion of Question Time concerning the next steps in the cease-fire.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the right hon. Gentleman make quite clear that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland understands what must be passing through the minds of our troops over there when they see walking about the streets and released from detention men who in their opinion might have been responsible for killing some of their colleagues? Admittedly the Secretary of State has difficult decisions, but he should understand that.

Mr. Mason: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman and every other hon. Member that I am perfectly well aware of that, as is my right hon. Friend. We are always aware that when there is a release of detainees, even though they may have been scrupulously screened, there is the possibility that they might go back to carrying out some of the activities for which they were arrested. We are aware of that and we have to watch it carefully.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his best estimate of the number of British soldiers killed by terrorists and the number of terrorists killed by British soldiers in action in Northern Ireland during 1974.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Robert C. Brown): Thirty-five Service personnel were killed by terrorist activity and 10


persons were killed by the security forces in circumstances which suggest that they were engaged in terrorist activities.

Mr. Lawson: May I ask the Minister to answer the Question, which was about the number not only of terrorists killed by British forces over the last year but of British Service men killed by terrorists? Will he confirm that the number of British Service personnel killed by terrorists is considerably in excess of the number of terrorists killed by British forces? Does not this suggest that possibly the rules restricting the behaviour of our forces in Northern Ireland are unduly restrictive at the present time?

Mr. Brown: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should ask me for that answer. If he had been listening to my reply, he would have heard me say that 35 members of the armed forces were killed by terrorists last year.
On the second point raised by the hon. Gentleman, it is extremely difficult to judge what is at the back of his mind. Is he trying to make a valid comparison? If he is, I point out to him that he cannot do so, because the terrorists aim to kill or at any rate to maim, whereas the security forces use force only in response to attack. They do so with the greatest restraint and in keeping with the law of the land.
Last year 1,367 persons were arrested and charged. As at 31st December, more than 1,500 persons were serving prison sentences as a result of apprehension by the armed forces. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should relax respect for the law by the British forces in Northern Ireland so that the 1,500 people at present in prison should be dead instead, he will not get much support either in this House or in the country.

Mr. Noble: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the kind of comment just made by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) is unfortunate at this time when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is trying to extend the truce?

Mr. Brown: I thought I had made that abundantly clear.

Mr. McCusker: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Army is at present

unable to reply to attacks by mortars and so on if the enemy is operating from concealed or hidden positions? Is there any possibility of relaxation of this practice so that the Army can reply in kind to terrorists?

Mr. Brown: I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman has said is strictly true. If mortars are being used and the position from which they are being fired can be located, return fire is made. If the hon. Gentleman is thinking of incidents across the border, that is another issue.

Mr. Buck: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman's Department for having arranged a visit to Northern Ireland, from which I have just returned. Is he aware that a broadsheet called "Visor" is being produced in Northern Ireland which sets out succinctly the way in which our Services have been magnificently successful in cutting down the rate of killings, and so forth, of the troops? Will he arrange for this admirable publication to be placed in the Library for the benefit of Members?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his comments. I am glad that he had a good trip to Northern Ireland and I am particularly pleased that he has mentioned "Visor", which is much appreciated by the troops. I shall see that copies are placed in the Library of the House.

Tactical Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Robin F. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of tactical nuclear weapons in service with British forces, in the light of the defence review.

Mr. Mason: No change is planned in the rôle of tactical nuclear weapons in service with British forces. The defence review proposals do not affect this question.

Mr. Cook: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the very large numbers of such weapons in the European theatre increases the danger that any conflict in Europe might quickly accelerate into a nuclear war? Since the preponderance of these weapons lies with the NATO countries, is not this a direction in which the West could usefully take an initiative towards mutual disarmament? Why are


the British Government resisting the Dutch proposals that such weapons be included in the MBFR talks in Vienna?

Mr. Mason: First, no, I do not agree with my hon. Friend's initial comment about increasing the possibility of conflict. The tactical nuclear weapons in the hands of the West and the NATO nations are part of the triad for flexible response. We mainly depend upon conventional arms in Western Europe and hope that they will be sufficient to withstand a conventional assault, but the tactical nuclear weapons part of the flexible response will be there as a second stage before we would go to the nuclear holocaust. In that sense they are part of our deterrent. I hope that my hon. Friend will not believe that these weapons are only in the hands of the West. They are certainly in the hands of the East as well.

Mr. Blaker: When, in December, the right hon. Gentleman resisted the Dutch proposal to reduce the rôle of tactical nuclear weapons in Western Europe, he gave as his reason the fact that such a move might bring forward the time when the strategic nuclear deterrent might have to be used and that we should not make any such move in advance of the agreement in Vienna at the MBFR talks. Do not exactly these two arguments apply to his own proposal to reduce our reinforcement capability to NATO?

Mr. Mason: No, I do not think they do. We are well within our national rôle of activity in reappraising our forces provided we are still carrying out our task within the collective security of NATO, even though we may be lessening our effort on the flanks and hoping that those countries in NATO will be strengthening their effort as we withdraw from the flanks. Therefore, the hon. Member's initial comment does not square up with that point.

Harrier Aircraft

Mr. Gould: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the advanced Harrier aircraft.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Brynmor John): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West

(Mr. Edelman) on 4th November. The advanced Harrier aircraft is one of a number of alternatives which are being considered to meet a possible RAF requirement for a replacement aircraft for the Jaguar and Harrier. This possible requirement is still a long way off and our studies are still in progress. No firm decision on the type of aircraft we require is therefore yet possible.

Mr. Gould: Does my hon. Friend accept that with the cancellation of the HS146 an advanced Harrier, for which a large market is virtually assured in America at least, is one of the few remaining viable projects left open for the British aircraft industry? Therefore, will he have discussions with colleagues in the Department of Industry to make sure that we do not end up in the 1980s with no aircraft industry of our own and having to buy aircraft from the Americans?

Mr. John: The existence of a British aircraft industry is important to my right hon. Friends and to me. It is important to note, however, that the Americans, although they are undertaking studies about the advanced Harrier, have reached no firm decision yet, and this will be borne in mind. The primary requirement is for a Jaguar/Harrier replacement, which will be needed towards the end of the next decade, and therefore at this stage it is prudent that the RAF should study its exact requirements in as much detail as possible, so that we do not undertake any needless expenditure.

Mr. Goodhew: Is not the Minister aware that the V/STOL capability of the Harrier, and therefore of an advanced Harrier, is already accepted as being of great value not only to the RAF but to other NATO air forces? Would it not be sensible for the Government to pursue this matter further and not wait until time has passed and the Americans have stepped into the market?

Mr. John: The Government are not allowing time to pass. Studies are being undertaken to bring about the most exact definition of the RAF's requirement for a replacement for the Harrier and Jaguar. When they have been completed a firm conclusion can be reached, and then we shall be in a position to proceed, but it is certainly not yet time.

Hong Kong

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the purpose of the units of the armed forces stationed in Hong Kong.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers): To help preserve its territorial integrity.

Mr. Hooley: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is absurd to abandon all the link bases from South Africa across the Indian Ocean—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and to leave this garrison out on a limb when the limb does not exist? Is it not a waste of professional manpower and in military terms stupid when there is no air cover and no adequate naval support is possible?

Mr. Rodgers: No, Sir. That is not the view I take.

Eurogroup and NATO (Equipment Standardisation)

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he last attended a meeting of Eurogroup in Brussels; and if he will make a statement on equipment standardisation in NATO.

Mr. Mason: As I told the House in the recent defence debate, the question of standardisation and increased collaboration on equipment was one of the main topics of discussion at the Eurogroup and NATO Defence Planning Committee ministerial meetings which I attended in Brussels last month. There was general agreement that work in this important field should be pressed forward with vigour. I personally hope to be able to play a useful part as Chairman of the Eurogroup during the coming year.

Mr. Johnson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon becoming Chairman of the Eurogroup. Is he aware that my interest has to do with aviation? Is it correct that the F104 is due for replacement? In the light of that, will he comment about standardisation?

Mr. Mason: The Belgians, Danes, Dutch and Norwegians are looking for an F104 replacement. If it can be agreed, and if the choice is one aircraft, it will be a valuable step towards standardisation. But I have already informed them

that if they fail to find one aircraft that will satisfy them in the dual rôle that they want it to perform, the Anglo-French Jaguar could satisfy one rôle. I have let them know that in Eurogroup. If they fail to find one aircraft for the dual rôle, I hope that the Anglo-French Jaguar will be considered.

Mr. Goodhart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a recent major exercise more than half the aircraft theoretically destroyed were shot down by their own side because of the incompatibility of aircraft recognition systems within the NATO Alliance? What is being done to end that deplorable state of affairs?

Mr. Mason: What the hon. Gentleman has said was correct. It is one of the values of the NATO Defence Planning Committee that it can release such information, in spite of the fact that its members may have felt at the time that it might do them harm. What happened shows the need, and makes the case, for pressing forward for standardisation. Studies are taking place to see whether we can have better aircraft recognition systems and communication systems to obviate that danger.

Multi-role Combat Aircraft

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the quantity of fuel consumed and the cost of keeping one MRCA in the air for one hour on typical training flying.

Mr. William Rodgers: It is too soon to say.

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunate to be committing ourselves to an order for such an aircraft if we have little idea what the running costs will be? Is he satisfied that we can afford the plane, particularly as the programme will probably cost more than the Channel Tunnel? Even if we can afford to buy it, is my hon. Friend satisfied—as he does not know the cost—that we can keep it in the air to train crews to use it?

Mr. Rodgers: I know the concern which has been expressed by hon. Members about the possible cost of the aircraft, but the best evidence we have is that it will be less expensive from a flying point of view than other aircraft


which it will replace. Those who believe that there is an alternative should spell out clearly what it is.

Mr. Kershaw: Will the hon. Gentleman also be able in his calculations to formulate the cost of not having an effective aircraft in the next generation?

Civilian Employment

Mr. Woodall: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will take regional factors fully into account in determining the details of the defence review and, in particular, ensure that jobs are not affected in areas of high and persistent unemployment.

Mr. Dan Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will take regional factors into account in determining the outcome of the defence review and, in particular, ensure that jobs are not affected in areas of high and persistent unemployment.

Mr. William Rodgers: Yes, of course, but if we are to implement fully the savings in defence spending we have in mind it will not be easy to give regional factors overriding consideration.

Mr. Woodall: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he have regard, however, to the present high rate of unemployment in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region compared with the rest of the United Kingdom if it comes to the possibility of cancelling defence contracts?

Mr. Rodgers: We shall certainly bear in mind and try as far as possible to ensure that areas of high and persistent unemployment are least affected by the necessary loss of job opportunities which will follow the defence review.

Dr. Hampson: As at the time of the defence review the Secretary of State could not name which airfields he would close, but could say only that there would be 12, will the Minister now name them? Are Yorkshire airfields involved? Will the Minister also make good the other deplorable lack in the defence review—a statement on North Sea defence?

Mr. Rodgers: That goes rather wider than the Question. We are anxious to give the House the maximum information as

soon as possible. The undertaking given by my right hon. Friend in the defence debate stands, of course.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Can the Minister give us any time scale for the announcement of details of the cut-back in manpower on stations? In Moray and Nairn, where there are two stations, there is considerable uncertainty in the whole community, and uncertainty is good for nobody—neither for the members of the RAF nor for the civilians involved in the work. Will the time scale be one month, two months or three months?

Mr. Rodgers: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady about uncertainty. We are as anxious as she is to end it. We have it in mind to publish a Defence White Paper giving the conclusions of the review when we have completed our consultations The hon. Lady may therefore be sure that the information will be available then, if not sooner.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that if there are to be substantial cuts in defence expenditure there must inevitably be cuts in the number of jobs available? Will he make it clear to Members who are the most vocal advocates of the highest cuts and who have defence projects in their areas that that is the certain consequence of what they are advocating?

Mrs. Ewing: It is Polaris we are against.

Mr. Rodgers: It is painful but inescapable that major savings in defence expenditure have consequences for employment. We shall try as far as possible to ensure that such savings do not fall mainly on areas of high and persistent unemployment. We shall do our best to find alternative work for those in areas where job opportunities are lost.

Mr. Peter Walker: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson), may I ask the Minister to include in the Government's White Paper a passage about North Sea defences? It is a matter about which there is a great lack of information. The public are very interested.

Mr. Rodgers: I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows about the study at present in progress. We hope to have something in the White Paper even if we cannot make a statement sooner.

Through-Deck Cruisers

Miss Richardson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the number of through-deck cruisers to be made available to the Royal Navy; what is the delivery schedule; and what is the cost per vessel.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Frank Judd): HMS "Invincible", the first of the new class of anti-submarine cruisers, will enter service towards the end of the decade. I am afraid that it would be premature to give information on the future programme or costs.

Miss Richardson: Will my hon. Friend say when he will be able to give such a time scale? Does he agree in anticipation that this is an expensive programme? Does he agree that the money might be better spent on building more homes or in allowing local authorities more subsidies so that they do not have to increase rents—a matter that we may be discussing later today?

Mr. Judd: I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is not our practice to reveal numbers in our future shipbuilding plans. All I can say is that we are planning a class of these ships. I am sure my hon. Friend will realise that on the ground of economy there is a strong case for such ships. The anti-submarine capability of the cruiser will be much greater than that of all the frigates we could purchase with the same money.

Mr. Buck: Is the Minister aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be glad that he is now confirming that there will not be only one ship of this type but that there will be others? It will, therefore, be the first of a class of ship. Is the hon. Gentleman able to tell us anything about whether it will be equipped with the maritime Harrier?

Mr. Judd: Like a number of other projects, the maritime Harrier is under consideration. A decision will be announced as soon as possible. As the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, the case for the cruiser does not depend upon the maritime Harrier. Obviously the development of such aircraft would enhance the capabilities of the ship.

Mr. Newens: Is it a wise decision, even from the point of view of those who believe in increased defence expenditure, to go ahead with the ship when no decision has been made on the maritime Harrier? If the decision is made not to go ahead with the maritime Harrier we may well be wasting our money, even in the eyes of those who believe in this unnecessary ship.

Mr. Judd: With great respect, I believe that my hon. Friend misunderstands the situation. The primary capability of this ship will be the deployment of many Sea King anti-submarine helicopters, each with about the same capability as a frigate. It will significantly enhance the Royal Navy's anti-submarine capability.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is the Minister aware that discussion on the maritime Harrier continues month after month and year after year with no decision being made? Surely he accepts the necessity of these aircraft for the Royal Navy, and surely a decision should be forthcoming more or less immediately.

Mr. Judd: The matter is actively under consideration. I can assure the hon. Member, whose interest I have appreciated and noted for a long time, that we shall delay no longer than necessary in coming to our conclusions.

Redundant Personnel

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how he intends to help those members of Her Majesty's Forces whom he will make redundant to find another job.

Mr. William Rodgers: There already exists an extensive and well proven resettlement service to assist all personnel leaving the forces to find new employment, and those made redundant as a result of the defence review would naturally be able to make use of it. We are considering whether its resources need to be supplemented in any way.

Mr. Morrison: Is the Minister aware that at a time of growing unemployment the cuts announced in the defence review can have only an adverse effect? Does he agree that, whatever might be the ideological reasons for cutting down on the Services, throwing men out of work is not compatible with the present employment situation?

Mr. Rodgers: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has introduced the false note of ideology into a discussion of a genuine human problem. It is true that there will be situations which may be difficult. We shall do our best. I should say that the numbers becoming redundant are a relatively modest proportion of the total number of personnel who leave the Armed Services every year for whom resettlement services exist.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware of the view of economists and economic historians that since 1945 the chief reason for recurring economic recession has been a deficit in our balance of payments due to the money expended on military forces abroad? Would it not be sensible to cure economic recession by withdrawing such troops or reducing their numbers?

Mr. Rodgers: I should like to hear chapter and verse from my hon. Friend before being persuaded that in the opinion of economists and economic historians our balance of payments deficit since 1945 has been due mainly to the presence of British forces abroad. We believe that the savings we are making in defence expenditure are justified, and we intend to proceed with them. I hope very much that they will win the support of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Cormack: Will the Minister send his hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) details of the defence expenditure of the Warsaw Pact countries? Will he take this opportunity of reiterating that the prime duty of every Government is to defend the homes of this land and not to waste money on extravagant and unnecessary domestic expenditure? The position of defence expenditure must always be first and foremost.

Mr. Rodgers: This is a matter of balance and common sense. We have to maintain an adequate defence programme for our national interest, but unless we spend sufficiently on all the important social programmes at home we shall not be fulfilling our obligations.

Simonstown Agreement

Mr. Grylls: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement

on his progress with regard to the ending of the Simonstown Agreement.

Mr. Mason: The conduct of the negotiations is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, but, as he reaffirmed when he saw the South African Prime Minister on 4th January, Her Majesty's Government's aim is to terminate the agreement as soon as possible.

Mr. Grylls: Will the Minister bear in mind Soviet naval activity in the Indian Ocean and the possible danger to oil supplies to the whole of Western Europe which that activity could bring about? Will he consult our NATO allies with a view to seeing whether there is any possibility of a NATO solution to defence in the area of the Indian Ocean which would help this country and which would help to solve the problem?

Mr. Mason: I am aware of the first point raised by the hon. Gentleman. On his second point, I believe that the NATO Defence Planning Council is worried about the growth of Soviet naval activity around the Cape and the Indian Ocean and that it will probably be embarking upon the study that he suggests.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my right hon. Friend deny that NATO has its eyes on Simonstown and that the study to which he refers has already started contrary to NATO's charter, which precludes it from going further south than a specified limit?

Mr. Mason: I am not aware of the detail to which my hon. Friend refers regarding the study. He suggested that NATO has its eyes on Simonstown. That means nothing. Any fleet of any nation can now use Simonstown, and fleets use it. The French and the Iranians as well as the British call in when they are moving round the Cape. Rest and recreational facilities are good, and it is too good a port visit for many of the fleets to miss. Even if we renegotiate the Simonstown Agreement it is still our intention to use it as other fleets of the world use it—namely, on a customer basis.

Mr. Brotherton: Leaving aside ideological considerations, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Simonstown Agreement is of immense importance to Britain's defence?

Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman has not been taking notice of developments in recent times. Simonstown is of lessening importance to the defence of this country. The use of Simonstown can help fleets of the world in replenishment and in training exercises when going round the Cape and, as far as we are concerned, in going on exercises with CENTO and SEATO. It also serves a useful purpose for protecting the trade routes around the Cape. Because of our gradual withdrawal from the East, however, it is of lessening importance to us.

Nuclear Tests

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is yet able to announce whether the nuclear test programme of 1974 was successful.

Mr. Mason: The single United Kingdom nuclear device test which was carried out in 1974 successfully met its prime objectives.

Mr. Rooker: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this was not a "planted" Question? Will he also confirm to the House that there is no 1975 programme?

Mr. Mason: "Planted" Questions are alien to my view of parliamentary democracy. I cannot confirm the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I must await the full analysis of the test to see whether it may be necessary to have another test in future. It would be foolish of me to say that there will never be another test underground in Nevada of the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent.

Expenditure

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will issue a tabular statement comparing military spending—under the principal heads in the Defence White Paper—in 1974–75 with that now estimated for each of the next four years.

Mr. Mason: As the answer is in the form of a chart, I will, with permission, publish it in the Official Report. I shall be considering what further detailed information on the defence review can helpfully be published after the consultation process.

Mr. Allaun: Do not my right hon. Friend's own figures show that, compared

with this year, there has to be not a cutback but an increase in our spending? Secondly, will he recognise that harsh economic realities will force him to cut back, just as they did in 1968, and that it would be far better to do it now, before economic bankruptcy hits the country and the Labour Government suffer in consequence the fate which the Labour Government suffered at the 1970 General Election?

Mr. Mason: I am sorry to hear my hon. Friend's gloomy prognostications. Apparently he wants to talk the nation into economic bankruptcy. To the 35,000 people affected in the Services, the 10,000 in the defence industries and the 15,000 employed at Ministry of Defence establishments, these cuts are very real. I emphasise once more to my hon. Friend and to the House that when one embarks on cuts in defence expenditure one embarks upon cuts on what was planned and proposed in the long-term costings. In 1975–76 the planned expenditure on defence was to be £4,000 million. It will now be £3,700, a real cut of £300 million.

Following is the information:

The division of the Defence Budget Estimates for 1974–75 by principal headings is as follows:



£m.
Per cent.


1. Expenditure on Personnel:




(a) Pay, allowances, etc. of the Armed Forces
883·7



(b) Armed Forces retired pay, pensions, etc.
185·0



(c) Pay, etc. of civilian staff
610·0



Total Personnel
1,678·7
46·5


2. Expenditure on Equipment:




(a) Sea Systems
306·4



(b) Land Systems
265·5



(c) Air Systems
593·5



(d) Other
123·0



Total Equipment
1,288·4
35·6


3. Other Expenditure:




(a) Works, buildings and lands (MOD)
Cr. 34·0



(b) Works and buildings (DOE)
247·4



(c) Pay of DOE civilian staff
43·8



(d) Miscellaneous stores and services
387·7



Total Other
644·9
17·9


TOTAL
3,612·0
100·0

Recruitment

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the effect on recruitment of his proposed reduction in defence expenditure.

Mr. William Rodgers: It is difficult to to say at this stage, but we shall be making it clear that the Services will continue to offer a wide range of career opportunities and require large numbers of recruits.

Mr. Lane: In relation to career prospects, does the hon. Gentleman accept that among middle-ranking members of the Royal Air Force, some of whom I met during the recess, there is considerable uneasiness? Does he agree that the human factor may prove even more important than the economic and material factors, particularly if the emphasis in future is to be on quality rather than quantity?

Mr. Rodgers: I would not dissent from that view, but it is worth noting that recruiting so far in the current financial year—a year which has been dominated by the defence review—has been markedly better than during the corresponding period last year. We believe that the position is being held.

Mr. Woodall: In view of the proposed defence rundown, will my hon. Friend agree to review the applications made by members of the Services to buy themselves out which have been refused because of their length of service?

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend has raised a new point and I shall look into it.

Mr. Peter Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the attractions of recruitment at the moment is the way ex-Service men are treated by some local authorities as regards housing at the time of demobilisation? What progress has he made in his talks with the Department of the Environment on this matter?

Mr. Rodgers: As the right hon. Gentleman suggests, housing has been a problem. I am hoping that a circular will shortly be sent to all local authorities drawing attention to the ways in

which they can help in what are genuine human problems.

BAOR (Television)

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in providing a welfare television service for British troops in Germany.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: We intend to provide a live British television service combining programmes from all three channels for the British forces in West Germany. All the main concentrations of personnel and their families should be served within about three years and in the meantime we have plans to provide a more restricted recorded service, starting in those areas where the need for amenities is greatest.

Mr. Hardy: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is welcome news particularly for the wives and families of Service men, not least the wives and families of Service men enduring tours of duty in Northern Ireland? Is he further aware that I feel sure that most members of the British forces in Germany will be pleased by that answer?

Mr. Kershaw: Will the hon. Gentleman nevertheless bear in mind that, welcome though this service will be, as with the Simonstown problem the primary object of British forces is to defend this country and not to indulge in excessive welfare activities?

Mr. Brown: Those comments are unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. We have all to recognise that as long as British troops have to be stationed overseas they are entitled to the amenities which their civilian counterparts enjoy.

Polaris

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to maintain the effectiveness of the Polaris force by updating it.

Mr. Mason: I have nothing further to add to the answers given by my hon. Friend on 11th and 13th December to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter).

Mr. Hoyle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hope is that the Polaris forces will be phased out and that it will not be very long before this is done?

Mr. Mason: I have explained to the House many times that this will be subject to multilateral negotiations. We would like to get the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and the MBFR negotiations out of the way first before we start talking about Polaris and its withdrawal.

Shipbuilding Industries

Mr. Dodsworth: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to complete his consultations with the shipbuilding industries regarding the defence review.

Mr. Judd: In good time for the publication of the White Paper which my right hon. Friend proposes to issue.

Mr. Dodsworth: While I thank the Minister for that information, may I ask him to ensure that at the time the review is concluded the closest possible attention will be paid to the change in employment prospects which may result? More particularly, will attention be paid to the change that may take place in the ability of the industry to deliver export orders as a result of a change to Government-controlled dockyards? Is not this a case of cut-price back-door nationalisation in an attempt to change the form of the industry?

Mr. Judd: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all the points he has mentioned are well to the forefront of the Government's considerations.

Mr. Molloy: Can my hon. Friend enlighten the House on an aspect of defence policy which relates to private British industry, including shipbuilding? In so far as the Department is responsible for the defence of the nation, can my hon. Friend say to what extent it is responsible for checking on the activities of allies like the Americans who, it is alleged, have an organisation called the CIA which is conducting espionage activities in British industries for reasons we do not yet know?

Mr. Judd: As my hon. Friend is aware, that is a question for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Beira Patrol

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the future of the Beira naval patrol.

Mr. Judd: As we have repeatedly made clear, we shall continue to fulfil our obligations under Security Council Resolution No. 221 of 1966. The patrol has been completely effective in achieving its aim of preventing oil reaching Rhodesia via Beira. Last year I visited HMS "Leopard" when she was on the Beira patrol. I was greatly impressed by the professional efficiency and loyalty with which an often tedious task was being conducted.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is the Minister aware that the status of Mozambique has totally changed since the Portuguese gave that area self-government? Can he honestly say that the patrol is now serving a useful purpose? Can he say how often it is on station, and will he tell us how much it is costing the taxpayer annually?

Mr. Judd: Part of that question is obviously for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. It is not wise to try to separate the cost of an operation of this kind from operations as a whole in that part of the world, because it is essentially linked to all our activities in the Indian Ocean.

Mr. Churchill: Will the Minister confirm that Simonstown was the single most valuable support base in recent years for the Beira patrol?

Mr. Judd: It is possible to maintain this patrol without the facilities available at Simonstown. My right hon. Friend has already referred to Simonstown in his answers this afternoon.

EEC (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on 7th December to a meeting of London Labour mayors about British policy towards the EEC.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech in London on 7th December about Great Britain and the EEC.

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to


the Labour mayors in London on Saturday 7th December on the renegotiations with the EEC.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on EEC matters to London Labour mayors on 7th December.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I did so on 9th December, Sir.

Mr. Hurd: Does the Prime Minister recall that in that speech he said that if the terms were right he personally would recommend them to the British public? If we are still a parliamentary democracy, is there not another necessary step? Will the right hon. Gentleman now give the assurance, which he side-stepped before Christmas, that at the right time and before any referendum the Leader of the House will arrange for a full debate in this House so that we can pass a judgment on the terms after that debate, on a free vote?

The Prime Minister: This was not side-stepped before Christmas. I dealt with some of the questions put at that time including that one. If there is to be a referendum it will require legislation by the House with all the necessary debate surrounding that matter.

Mr. William Hamilton: Further to that point, can my right hon. Friend tell the House what time-scale he has in mind? Can he give us any indication of when he or the other members of the Community think that negotiations will be concluded? Can he then say when he expects the legislation to be laid before the House? Would he agree that if it is not laid very soon it will be impossible to fulfil the time-scale he had in mind in his original idea of getting the consent of the British people within 12 months of the last election?

The Prime Minister: The last part is a commitment of the Government. It is not possible for me to give any firm forecasts about the timetable because this is a matter for negotiation between nine nations and not a matter for one. I am sure that it is the desire not only of the Government but of the whole House, as it is of our colleagues involved in the negotiations, that we should proceed with all possible speed to reach a conclusion on this matter.

I know that it is the hope and expectation of many that we shall be able to do that before Easter.

Mr. Blaker: The Prime Minister will agree that the tenor of his speech was that everything depends on the result of the negotiations. Is he aware that the tenor of the letter written recently to constituents by the Secretary of State for Industry is entirely different and contradicts his speech? What impression does the right hon. Gentleman think is given to our partners in the Community when the Prime Minister is flatly contradicted by one of his own Ministers?

The Prime Minister: In his letter to his constituents at the turn of the year my right hon. Friend made it quite clear that he was not anticipating the consequences of the negotiations or the terms that would result. He was expressing his analysis of certain constitutional aspects. The negotiations are being conducted within the EEC by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary who is speaking for the whole Government. Each quarter there are summit meetings of the European Council. On those occasions my right hon. Friend is joined by myself. We are negotiating strictly within the terms of the manifesto we put to the country, which was twice endorsed by the country last year.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he expects the referendum to be fair when, with perhaps the exception of the Morning Star, the whole of the mass media is attempting to brainwash the public by insidious propaganda in favour of staying in the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: May I first express my regret that my hon. Friend is shortly to go into hospital? We very much regret the circumstances.
If the Government decide on a referendum and the legislation is put before the House, it will be a matter for the House to decide the circumstances in which any test of public opinion is taken, including questions of expenditure and the question of fair presentation of the case by both sides.

Mr. Lamont: Is it not remarkable that although in his open letter the Secretary of State for Industry dwelt at great length on the constitutional traditions of the


country he ignored one important tradition, that of collective responsibility? Is it not the Government's policy that if the terms are right we stay in, and is it not the policy of the Secretary of State for Industry that we do not stay in on any terms?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I do not accept that interpretation. The constitutional matters with which my right hon. Friend was concerned related to the authority of the House. I think it is the common view of all hon. Members that the House should retain the maximum authority in all matters affecting the welfare of our people.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: What do the Government propose to do about our trade deficit with the EEC? Is not the Prime Minister aware that the deficit is being, and will be, used by the Secretary of State for Trade, among others, as a rather facile argument for withdrawal?

The Prime Minister: Figures of this magnitude cannot be regarded as in any sense facile. It was generally recognised by both sides of the House that for a few years there would be an adverse deficit. That was never in question. If Britain was in the EEC on the right terms it was generally recognised that it would take time for our exports to be geared up to the challenge we faced. What has happened so far is extremely disappointing. This is a matter for export policy and the efforts of exporters. So far, some of the more extreme hopes both in relation to exports and in relation to massive investment to make exports possible—for which the Leader of the Opposition called in Guildhall in 1970—have not been realised, but if the terms are right the whole Honse will hope that they are realised.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that a critical factor shaping any of the recommendations which he or the Cabinet might make on the Common Market must be the decisions which are arrived at at the special Labour Party conference called on this matter?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, of course. I answered a question about that from, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds)—

Mr. Faulds: Yes, Sir.

The Prime Minister: —on 19th December last.

Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister emphasised that the Foreign Secretary speaks for the whole Government and acknowledged that the Secretary of State for Industry speaks for himself. Will he confirm that the whole Government will be bound by the recommendation which the Government make?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that a debate on legislation for the referendum is not a debate on whatever may be the result of the so-called renegotiation, and that the House will insist on having a full debate, on which it takes its own decision, before the referendum is put to the country? In 1972 no one was more enthusiastic for a debate than was the present Prime Minister, and we had a six-day debate. He was also enthusiastic that there should not be a referendum.
Thirdly, on the timing of the referendum, an important part of any legislation must undoubtedly be the form of the question which is put to the electorate. How can that be settled until the Prime Minister has reported to the House the result of the so-called renegotiation?

The Prime Minister: In reply to his first supplementary question, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to wish him a Happy New Year before I answer his further questions.
What the right hon. Gentleman said in the main part of his supplementary question is perfectly fair. We shall certainly be prepared to have discussions through the usual channels about the form of the debate on the merits of the case as opposed to legislation. That is absolutely right. As we are committed to seeking, and are now proposing to seek, the full-hearted consent of the British people—on which the right hon. Gentleman once made a pledge—it is important that Parliament's lead in this matter should also be fully debated.
The right hon. Gentleman began by referring to my right hon. Friend's letter and by suggesting that I said he was speaking only for himself. I did not say that. My right hon. Friend, as part of the general debate, was dealing with an important question to which I am sure


the whole House attaches importance. He was not dealing with the terms which will result from renegotiation. That is a matter which is set out in our manifesto, and it is on that basis that we are negotiating.
On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, which is again of great importance, I agree that the form of the question must be absolutely clear. That will be within the control of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman sponsored legislation for Northern Ireland in which the House was asked to approve the actual terms of the question which was included in the schedule to the Bill. That must be the situation in any legislation we bring before the House. My own answer to this must be perrfectly clear. [Interruption.] If anyone thinks it is not, let him get up and say so when I sit down. The form of ballot paper which we envisage would be a clear answer to the question "In?" or "Out?" answered by "Yes" or "No".

TUC AND CBI (MEETINGS)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister on how many occasions he has now met the TUC and the CBI.

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister on how many occasions he has now met the TUC and the CBI.

The Prime Minister: Since last March I have met representatives of the TUC and CBI either separately or together on 14 occasions, most recently at the meeting of the National Economic Development Council which I chaired last Wednesday and at my meeting with leaders of the CBI on Friday.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend tell us a little more about his meeting with the TUC on the question of the immediate release of the Shrewsbury pickets, the victims of the Tory class war? Will he give a different message today to the thousands of trade unionists who are lobbying the House to secure the release of the two people who are fighting the last vestiges of the Industrial Relations Act? Will he, on behalf of the whole of the Parliamentary Labour Party, declare that we all support political prisoners, wherever they may be, even on own own doorstep?

The Prime Minister: In my meeting with the representatives of the TUC General Council on the question of the pickets I explained what has already been explained to the House by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The TUC fully understood that recommendations to the Queen within the prerogative of mercy are not a matter of collective Government decision and never have been. There has been no consideration of any such matters by any Government for the past half century. This is not a matter on which either the Cabinet or the Prime Minister can give directions to the Home Secretary. My right hon. Friend, like all his predecessors, has this difficult and invidious duty of making recommendations to Her Majesty on the basis of the special relationship of the Home Secretary to the Crown. That is not a matter on which the Government, the Cabinet or the Prime Minister can give any ruling whatsoever. That has never been contested.
In my meeting with the representatives of the TUC I undertook to pass on to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the arguments they put forward and the facts they adduced on that occasion so that he could consider them, and that is what I did.

Mr. Peyton: Will the Prime Minister make clear that he does not endorse the disgraceful description used by his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) of these men as political prisoners?

The Prime Minister: I take the view that these were defendants who were prosecuted in accordance with the law as it stood and sentenced in accordance with the law as it stood. To that extent I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. This is a matter for legislation in which the whole House has authority, and the whole House must consider whether the use of conspiracy charges in such cases is not totally unacceptable and wrong.

Mr. Ashley: On the wider question of the Government's relations with the TUC and the CBI, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no question of the Government being dictated to by any section or group, right, left or centre? Will he also confirm that, in view of the serious economic crisis, the time has now come for the Government to demand


sacrifices from every section of the community, except the lowest paid—and the bigger the income the bigger the sacrifice?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend in his analysis of the position, and it is also the position of Her Majesty's Government. I do not now regard—any more than I did when I had responsibility for these matters on earlier occasions—meetings of NEDC or other meetings involving the TUC or CBI as meetings of right, left or centre.
I was encouraged last week by the NEDC meeting, at which we were directing ourselves to the problems inhibiting the investment programme which the country needs, by the talks which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had on Wednesday with the TUC and by my own meetings with the CBI. What we want to see—and we believe that this will now happen—is a continuing triangular discussion between the Government and the TUC, the Government and the CBI, and the CBI and the TUC, which is being planned so that all three groups in NEDC, both inside and outside it, can make the maximum contribution at the highest possible level of common ground so that we can identify the solution to the nation's economic problems.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that we have two long statements and then there are three important matters of business. The time for this Question is up.

SOUTHERN AFRICA

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. James Callaghan): I will with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, make a statement.
From Monday 30th December to Saturday 11th January I paid official visits to Zambia, Botswana, Malawi, Tanzania, Kenya and Nigeria. In each I had full and useful discussions with the Heads of Government and with many of their Ministers. I am most grateful for the hospitality shown to me. In every country I was renewing contacts with friends of long standing, but I am conscious

that the warm welcome given to me was an expression of the friendship felt by these African members of the Commonwealth for the people of the United Kingdom. The feeling for the Commonwealth is strong in all the countries I visited, even though nowadays it forms only one part—but an important part—of their international and regional relationships.
World inflation has hit the African people hard, especially in Kenya and Tanzania, and despite our own domestic difficulties we should be ready to give what aid we can to those who are much worse off than we are. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development agreed to my making offers of small additional loans on favourable terms to these two countries.
Nigeria is in a special position because of her exploitation of her oil resources and the opportunities for expanded trade between Britain and Nigeria are very great. I am glad to say that I found many young and energetic representatives of British firms pushing our exports, but the general cry from them all was that we could do even better in this favourable and important market if higher priority could be given to it here at home. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade hopes to visit Nigeria next month and will be looking into these matters.
My talks with the Heads of Government in all countries covered the impact of world inflation, the prospects for the forthcoming meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, relations between the African countries and the EEC, together with a number of bilateral issues. As regards the EEC, there have been protracted negotiations in recent months and I found a general disposition to sign an association agreement with the Community although some points still remained to be settled. We were agreed that such an association would be beneficial to them.
The main topic throughout my tour was the problem of Rhodesia. My first purpose, before setting out, was to obtain a clear idea of the views of the countries I visited. This I have done. My second aim was to work out, to the greatest degree possible, a common policy with the African Governments in


order to take advantage of the recent important initiatives of Presidents Kaunda, Nyerere and Seretse Khama, as well as those of the Prime Minister of South Africa.
I am glad to tell the House that in President Nyerere's own words—and I do not think he will mind my using them—our policies are now converging. I believe there is today a greater degree of understanding between Britain and the African Governments than at any time since the unilateral declaration of independence.
In my talks I found it necessary to repeat in every country that Britain accepts and will discharge her constitutional responsibilities to Rhodesia. The three Presidents urged me strongly to call a constitutional conference. In the joint communiqué issued after my visit to Zambia it was agreed that Britain and Zambia would work in close collaboration in determining the stages which should be followed in negotiations to bring about an acceptable solution to the Rhodesia problem, including the holding of a constitutional conference. I am now in the process of considering what these stages should be. There are complicated issues to be resolved like the timing, venue and participation in any conference to ensure that if and when one does take place it has the best chance of success. I must emphasise that confidence in Southern Africa is very fragile, and some of the events of the last few days have shown how easily the beginnings of mutual trust can be destroyed. Nevertheless, the alternative to a peaceful settlement is an escalation of violence and guerrilla war, and the attitude among the Governments I visited was that we must make every effort to overcome the obstacles and setbacks.
The House will know that following my talks in Zambia I decided also to pay a visit to Port Elizabeth for talks with the South African Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster. This meeting was welcomed as a useful step by the Governments of the African countries which I visited. I believe that it is Mr. Vorster's desire to see an agreed settlement between Europeans and Africans in Rhodesia and that he will lend his efforts to this end. I discussed with him ways of achieving this.
The Rhodesia problem can only be finally settled by a constitutional conference. Meantime unless our efforts in this direction are to be wasted, there are two essential requirements. First, early progress must be made towards securing the observance of all the provisions of the agreement worked out in Lusaka last month between the representatives of the three Presidents, the South African Government, Mr. Smith and the ANC. The differences of view about these provisions which have emerged in the last few days must be resolved quickly.
Second—and this is the other essential requirement—to keep the momentum going in order to pave the way for a successful constitutional conference the now united ANC and Mr. Smith should undertake direct exploratory talks. There is every advantage in the people of Rhodesia themselves—African and European meeting together on equal terms—getting down to working out what sort of constitutional settlement would be acceptable. The British Government will be ready to do anything which would contribute to a settlement consistent with the principles that we have laid down. Both communities in Rhodesia now have the difficult task of rethinking their roles. If there is to be substantial change, the leaders of the ANC need to allay the fears and to win the confidence of the European population so that they can look forward to a secure future in the new Rhodesia.
In the course of my exchanges with Mr. Vorster, I made clear that we do not recognise the right of South African police to be operating on the borders of Rhodesia and I urged him to withdraw them. I understand his position is that he will do so when he is satisfied that violence has ceased. I also informed Mr. Vorster of the changed policy of the British Government on Namibia and the Simonstown Agreement and we had a short discussion on the question of apartheid.
There is no doubt that following the dramatic changes now taking place in Mozambique and Angola a new situation is developing in other parts of Southern Africa. There is a better chance than for many years of achieving an honourable and peaceful settlement of the Rhodesia problem. But we must not be over-optimistic. There is


a very long way to go. We have still to discover whether all concerned have made the mental leap that will be required to set Rhodesia on a new and peaceful path. If not, there will be growing violence in which the whole of Southern Africa could well be drawn. For its part the British Government, in co-operation with the African countries most closely involved, will give maximum support to the efforts that are being made to find an acceptable solution.
I shall of course continue to keep the House informed.

Mr. Heath: In thanking the Foreign Secretary for his long and detailed statement, may I also say that we on this side of the House are glad that he made this prolonged visit to the African countries. I agree about the opportunities open to us in Nigeria. This matter was drawn to the attention of the nation when General Gowan came here in 1973.
The right hon. Gentleman emphasised the general desire of the African countries to reach an association agreement with the Community. I have no doubt that the Foreign Secretary will do everything possible in Brussels to facilitate such an agreement. Will he confirm that he found no disposition on the part of the African countries that Britain should leave the Community because their desire is that we should play a prominent part in strengthening the position of countries with association status?
On the main part of the statement about Rhodesia, we are particularly glad that the Foreign Secretary went to South Africa for talks with the Prime Minister and accepted the suggestions which were put forward in the House just before Christmas when he made his last statement.
On the future of Rhodesia, the gap still seems to be as wide as ever. The right hon. Gentleman has emphasised that all the terms of the Lusaka agreement should be carried out. Will he tell us a little more about that? I agree that any differences must be resolved as soon as possible, but what precisely are the differences which cause the right hon. Gentleman concern at the moment? I understand that Mr. Smith has emphasised that all the terms should be carried out. Presumably this refers to what we understand to be the undertaking that

there should be a cease-fire or truce at the same time as there should be the the release of detainees.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about Europeans in Rhodesia have greatly helped the situation, and he may now feel that this is so. Will he tell us what communication he has had with Mr. Smith about the proposed constitutional conference and future developments? The right hon. Gentleman emphasised the need for Europeans to be reassured. In what way does he propose to do this? Will he assure us that, if there is to be a constitutional conference, his contacts with Mr. Smith in future will be close and frequent so that the Europeans may feel that there is an equal relationship between all those sitting at the conference table?

Mr. Callaghan: There are still some negotiations to be concluded in Brussels on the association agreement. I have a feeling that they will be concluded successfully and that it will then be the intention that an agreement between the 45 countries involved—African, Caribbean and Pacific—will be signed probably next month.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether indications were given to me about our leaving the EEC. I think that most of the leaders of the States to whom I spoke believe that this matter should be left to the British people to decide. I certainly do not think that they believe it is to their advantage that we should be out, but neither do they think that it would be to their disadvantage, because they are now making their own arrangements with the Community through the association agreement.
Turning to the prospects for a constitutional conference, so far as I know there is no agreed statement on what was concluded in the discussions in Lusaka. Therefore, there are differences of interpretation. I have tried to put together the various statements that have been given to me. I think that there is general agreement between the statements, but there is obviously a great deal of difference about what the various statements meant and how they should be carried out. There is room for a great deal of disagreement here, but I believe that the attitude of Rhodesia's neighbours


will be that the parties in Rhodesia should try to get together to hammer out their differences on these agreements to make sure that, through no misunderstanding, this delicate plant is nurtured.
I have not yet been in touch with Mr. Smith. As I told the House before I went to Southern Africa, I wanted to find out what the other countries concerned had to say about this situation. I think that I have now got a pretty clear idea of what they all feel. It was agreed when I was in Zambia, which was my first port of call, that I should consider establishing some kind of contact. Of course, that would be far short of diplomatic representation. But assuming, for example, that exploratory talks began between the Africans and the Smith régime, there could be a case for an observer from this country being present in Salisbury. That is the kind of consideration about which I want to think now and would consider getting in touch with Mr. Smith about. The constitutional conference would come at the end of that particular process.
Regarding my remarks about the Europeans and the ice floe, I can only feel that it was too true to be comfortable. I think that the ice is even thinner than I thought it was when I went there. There is not a great deal of time left if Rhodesia is to make the choice between guerrilla warfare and a peaceful settlement.

Mr. Heath: I should like to press the Foreign Secretary further on one point. He emphasised the need for reassurance for Europeans in Rhodesia. There is no difference between us there. Therefore, is it not psychologically wrong to adopt the attitude that he has taken? When people have real and deep fears, surely they need reassurance, not comments of the kind made by the right hon. Gentleman.
We have all had experience over almost a decade now of Mr. Smith's psychological reactions to statements both in this House and outside. Therefore, may I press upon the Foreign Secretary the need to have direct communication with Mr. Smith—obviously not diplomatic representation; no Government since 1965 have had that—so that he with his colleagues does not feel that he has been

left isolated, because the right hon. Gentleman has close relations with the other African countries, including South Africa?

Mr. Callaghan: It was open to Mr. Smith to contact me, if he had wished to do so, while I was in Southern Africa. I made that clear before I left. The ANC did so. It wished to come and see me, but there were difficulties in the way. I will not labour them at present. However, I had no approach from Mr. Smith. In order that there should not be any question of amour propre here, now that I have discovered the attitude of the African Presidents and of South Africa and others I am ready to make contact with Mr. Smith at some level to see how we can move forward to the next stage. I should press him, as I would press the ANC, to carry out his part of the agreements in so far as they can agree with each other. I should also press him to enter into preliminary talks with the Africans there. Finally, as I think the right hon. Gentleman agrees, there must be a constitutional conference at which Britain would be present in order that we may put our seal on whatever was being agreed, and that would have to come before this House. I do not know whether we shall get that. I am not sure yet whether both sides are ready to go to such a conference. We must keep that position open.
There is no difference between us about the Europeans. As I said in my statement, it is now for the ANC to allay the fears and to win the confidence of the European population. If I were present at any such conference, I would certainly do my best to ensure that there were guarantees for the minority, who would then become the Europeans—they have so far been the Africans—and to ensure that they were carried out.
As to the principles from which we start, there cannot be neutrality. We have laid down the principles from which we start relating to a solution of the problem from the beginning, and I must adhere to these and point them out to Mr. Smith.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that many of us feel that he should be congratulated on having undertaken this very important, extensive and what must have been quite arduous tour? Is he aware that my right hon.


Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party is today seeing Mr. Smith and the ANC leaders in Salisbury and that he will be revisiting President Kaunda tomorrow? Does he accept that, in advance of a constitutional conference, the more informal contact between different sections of the community, whether within Rhodesia or wider even than Southern Africa, the better if we are to have the common aim of avoiding the alternative of a continuation of guerrilla warfare?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, I am aware that the Leader of the Liberal Party is in Salisbury today and has had conversations with President Kaunda. I was grateful, as I am sure the whole House will be, to the Leader of the Liberal Party for the doughty defence that he put up on the broadcasting network in Zambia recently about British policy on the issue. I think that the time has now come—I believe that this is generally agreed in Southern Africa; it would not have been agreed perhaps nine months ago—for the establishment of informal contacts at appropriate levels so that people can start talking to each other. But we must not underrate the difficulties which have still to be overcome if we are to achieve a settlement in accordance with the principles of the Government and of the Opposition.

Mr. Bottomley: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that it would be realistic to recognise that the Prime Minister of South Africa is likely to have the greatest influence on Mr. Smith and likewise the three African Presidents are likely to have the greatest influence on the Rhodesian Africans? In those circumstances, would it not be unwise to make contacts with Mr. Smith or even to open discussions at all at this stage? Should we not rather wait until the three Presidents and the Prime Minister of South Africa can say that substantial agreement has been reached and then consider calling the constitutional conference?

Mr. Callaghan: In the first part of that question, my right hon. Friend analyses the situation correctly. On the second part, I would remind him that I have been pressed by the three Presidents to call a constitutional conference straight away, so they apparently do not share that view. I am trying to steer an intermediate course between their desire for an early conference

and the desire that the Africans and the Rhodesians should find one another in Rhodesia by encouraging preliminary talks between them, which would lead, as my right hon. Friend says, to a constitutional conference if things go well. But I must reserve the right to the British Government to decide whether and when such a conference would help things, as distinct from hindering progress.

Mr. Hastings: May we take it from what the right hon. Gentleman told the Leader of the Opposition that he does now intend to get in touch with Mr. Smith or Mr. Smith's Government? Would he not agree that the key to the situation may now lie with whoever really controls the terrorist movement along the Zambesi? Clearly, it is not Mr. Sithole or Mr. Nkomo. After all, seven South African policemen have been killed along the Zambesi since he was there, or in recent days. Can he give us any hope that some influence can be brought to bear on whoever is behind these people, since otherwise a cease-fire is meaningless?

Mr. Callaghan: It would be appropriate now—I think that this would be the feeling of the House—that I should indeed begin making contacts at an appropriate level not only with Mr. Smith but with the ANC. In other words, future dealings cannot be just between Her Majesty's Government and Mr. Smith. The ANC will now have an important part to play in the talks and certainly in the final constitutional conference. As for the question of violence, all the three Presidents I spoke to—Nyerere, Kaunda and Seretse Khama—not only deplore it but disavow it. I am sure, in so far as these talks seem to have any continuing hope, that they will lend no countenance to violence but will do their best to ensure that it is arrested, but the hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties about this sort of matter.

Mr. Ogden: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his care and caution in this endeavour and on his personal stamina during that visit? Were the Presidents themselves pressing for a British representative to go to Salisbury to help contacts of any kind, either with Mr. Smith's Government or with the ANC? Second, what was their view on the question of whether all the neighbours of Rhodesia, not only the Commonwealth Governments, should be invited to a future constitutional conference?

Mr. Callaghan: On the first part of that question, the last sentence of the communiqué that I agreed with the Zambian Government was:
It was agreed that it would also become necessary for the British Govenment to enter into more direct and frequent contact with the parties concerned in Rhodesia and elsewhere.
It is that next stage on which I shall now embark. On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I do not envisage the neighbours of Rhodesia being present at any final constitutional conference, which would have to be between the parties in Rhodesia itself—all shades of opinion no doubt would need to be represented—plus Her Majesty's Government, on whom the final responsibility lies. But I have no doubt that Zambia in particular, the other countries concerned and South Africa will all be watching what takes place very carefully.

Mr. Kershaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that some of his remarks were rather unfortunate, in spite of the excuses that he has made today? Will he do whatever is necessary to establish the position of Her Majesty's Government as the honest broker in this matter—which I nevertheless agree the right hon. Gentleman has advanced during the course of his journey in Africa?

Mr. Callaghan: I am not sure to which remarks the hon. Gentleman is referring, but if it is the simple remark that the ice is breaking up all around Rhodesia, that seems to me to be a simple statement of fact when one looks at what is happening in Mozambique, in Angola and in Namibia. If people were not prepared to recognise that simple statement as altering the situation, there would not be much hope for progress. It is precisely because I believe that many people are ready to recognise this change, whatever may be the cheap currency of debating coinage, that I think that there is a prospect of making some advance.

Mr. Hooley: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the major obstacle to any constitutional settlement in Rhodesia will be Ian Smith himself? Was there any indication from the Prime Minister of South Africa as to when South Africa proposes to withdraw from Namibia?

Mr. Callaghan: On the first part of that question, I would not wish at this stage to enter into animadversions as to

my personal feelings on the attitudes of particular people, so perhaps we could leave it at that. On the second question, I should prefer, again, not to go into any detail on my discussions with Mr. Vorster, which were conducted on a confidential basis, but his public statements, I think, indicate his position pretty clearly.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: As I happened to be in South Africa at the same time as the Foreign Secretary, may I confirm the impression which the House has, that his visit was highly valued, at least there, although some aspects of it were controversial?
I have two questions. First, did the right hon. Gentleman form any impression—I clearly did form such an impression in South Africa—that a considerable proportion of the momentum and impetus for this settlement arises from the fact that Zambia is in a considerable economic jam and is seeking opportunities to reopen normal relationships and trade with South Africa and Rhodesia, since her very survival might depend on that? That is not an inconsiderable factor. Second, although I would not expect the right hon. Gentleman to breach the confidence that he has described in his talks with Mr. Vorster, can he say whether the question of sanctions against Rhodesia was discussed and whether Mr. Vorster gave any impression of how he viewed that question?

Mr. Callaghan: On the second part of the question, I can say now, without giving any offence to Mr. Vorster I believe, that the question of sanctions was not discussed. As for the momentum of affairs, those of us who have known President Kaunda for many years would certainly take the view that he has sustained great economic difficulties as a result of sanctions against Rhodesia and that he has been prepared to withstand and to sustain them. President Kaunda is a good man in every sense of the word and I do not believe that his economic difficulties are leading him to any different course than that which he thinks right for the peace and advancement of the African people in Rhodesia.

Severaln Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I will, with permission, make a statement. I do not apologise for its length, because at this moment the problem of Northern Ireland is a real one.
As the House is aware, there has been a suspension of Provisional IRA violence since midnight on 22nd December 1974. Following the cease-fire, I announced
that the actions of the security forces in Northern Ireland would be related to the level of any activity which might occur.
This undertaking was reaffirmed in my New Year's Eve message to the people of Northern Ireland. I repeat it again.
The security forces are still on their guard. Vehicle check points continue to be manned to prevent the movement of weapons and explosives, and those against whom there is evidence of involvement in criminal acts will continue to be arrested and brought before the courts. The watch on the border has not been relaxed. It is my duty to ensure that the security forces are ready at all times to deal with any resumption of violence. If it should become necessary, I also have proposals ready to put before the House in order to tighten control on vehicles and on movement in border areas.
Nevertheless, the people of Northern Ireland have seen and welcomed the real but cautious steps I have felt able to take in response to the cease fire. The Army has been able to reduce the size and frequency of patrols, particularly in urban areas. It has also largely avoided the questioning of people and the searching of their homes. There have been no major incidents. I have not signed any interim custody orders since 22nd December.
As I said in my New Year's Eve message, the people of Northern Ireland
… seek a lasting peace. This is what the Government seeks. Not a pause, but an end.
I went on to say that
…a genuine and sustained cessation of violence will create a new situation and new opportunities for progress
I promised
to set out more fully how the permanent cessation of violence would enable the Army to make a planned, orderly and progressive reduction in its present commitment.

It would be wrong to give a time scale for this. I shall have to be convinced that any relaxation and reduction of Army activity will not have to be paid for in lives lost and property destroyed. Once I am so convinced, the room for response is considerable. For example, there could be a further reduction in the size and frequency of Army potrols. The scale of searches of homes and questioning of people could be reduced further; searching of pedestrians entering enclosed areas of town centres could gradually be ended, and a start could be made towards the removal of road humps and road blocks. Searching of vehicles could be reduced, and restrictions on leaving vehicles unattended relaxed. Some Army units on emergency tours could be withdrawn.
In the later stages of this response to a permanent cessation of violence, the Army could be reduced to a peace-time level. It would no longer undertake foot or vehicle patrols in towns, though any such reductions in the Army and its commitments must not be allowed to create a vacuum. As the Army gradually reduced and withdrew to barracks, the community would require that law and order should be maintained by policing throughout Northern Ireland.
I repeat that no time scale can at this stage be put on these possible developments, which must be related to a genuine and sustained cessation of violence. I must also say that, if violence returns, the security forces will deal with it resolutely.
I would now like to turn to detention. As I have said before, the Government have acted legitimately and consistently with the terms of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in restricting certain fundamental freedoms. The crucial point is that only the Government can decide, in the light of the situation as a whole, when to start bringing detention progressively to an end.
I am prepared to say now that, if there is a genuine and sustained end of violence, I shall progressively release detainees. I do not propose to act precipitately, and any early releases must, and will be, carefully judged in relation to whether a cessation of violence is genuine and sustained.
Once I am satisfied that violence has come to a permanent end, I shall be prepared to speed up the rate of releases with a view to releasing all detainees. In the meantime, I shall be prepared to grant short home leaves for people who remain in detention and shall also consider how released detainees can be resettled.
This policy towards the release of those in detention is related to the permanent cessation of violence including sectarian assassinations. It will apply to any group or movement once I am satisfied that they have renounced violence and sectarian assassinations.
I am not prepared at this stage to give any undertakings about the rate and timing of releases and short home leaves.
Turning now to the Constitutional Convention, I look forward to a fruitful discussion among those who are elected to it. It will be entirely a forum for the people of Northern Ireland. Their elected representatives will have the specific duty and grave responsibility of making recommendations about the future constitutional relationships in Northern Ireland.
In the meantime, I shall continue to welcome constructive discussion with members of the prorogued Assembly. My officials have been, and are, available to hear the views of those in Northern Ireland who have something to contribute to the solution of its problems. Discussions have already taken place with a wide range of citizens from both communities. From the majority community, individuals who are associated with organisations such as the Ulster Defence Association, the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Volunteer Political Party have already given their views to my officials. I should like to make it clear that the same opportunities exist for the Provisional and Official Sinn Fein who, like the Ulster Volunteer Force, were deproscribed by me in May last year and are free to take part in genuine political activity within the law.
As I said in the White Paper of July 1974, the Government welcome the holding of discussions within various groups in the community. It is now important that such groups should engage in constructive talks amongst themselves and

with elected representatives and other organisations in Northern Ireland.
The question being asked throughout the whole community is "Can there be peace?" The people of Northern Ireland say "Yes". The Government have responded positively and will continue to do so. We await a similar response from the Provisionals and the other paramilitary organisations.

Mr. Heath: Everyone was glad that there was a cease-fire over Christmas and that that cease-fire was extended.
The contents of the statement which the Secretary of State has just made are in themselves firm and clear, and should therefore give reassurance to those in Northern Ireland who may have doubts about the course of present policy. In particular, the Secretary of State's emphasis that those against whom there is evidence of involvement in criminal acts will continue to be arrested and brought before the courts, which I found to be very clear instructions both to the Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary when I was in Northern Ireland, after the ceasefire began, should give reassurance to those, particularly perhaps the Protestants, who are worried about this matter.
Again the emphasis of the Secretary of State that the community will require law and order to be maintained by policing throughout Northern Ireland, as the strength of the Army is reduced, is of vital importance not only to the RUC but also to our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland.
May I add that I found in the RUC, I thought, a very considerable gain in confidence over their position of a year ago.
One of the further proposals was the reduction of the searches of pedestrians entering closed areas of town centres and the suggestion that these could gradually be ended. This could apply to Londonderry, where I was able to walk in the streets which neither I nor any Minister would have been able to do a year ago.
May I put this point to the Secretary of State? Surely there is a great dilemma which has faced both previous Governments and the present Secretary of State. Many people believe that it suited the Provisional IRA to have this cease-fire, although the steps taken by the Church ministers were helpful. The dilemma


which the Secretary of State faces is how the Government can make progress in the way that is indicated without creating a situation in which the Provisionals can reform, regroup and restrengthen themselves. This matter can be handled only by the intelligence forces of the Army and the RUC.
May I ask for two undertakings? The first is that the Secretary of State is not having negotiations with the IRA. He said that they cannot bomb themselves into the Constitutional Convention, although he will listen to the political views of Sinn Fein. Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to heed the continuing advice of the Army and the RUC as to the dangers of the Provisionals regrouping as a result of the extension of the cease-fire and the proposals that he is making? If the right hon. Gentleman gives those undertakings, is he aware that everyone in the House will support him?

Mr. Rees: I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition has taken up the point of reassurance. It matters at this crucial time that all of us in this Parliament should act in a way to reassure both sides of the community in Northern Ireland, who themselves have real fears, even if they are very difficult to understand.
With regard to arrests, during the period from 22nd December to 13th January for offences concerning firearms, murder, attempted murder, hijacking and so on, 45 people have been arrested by the police. Policing is very important—all Governments have been aware of this—and the developments in the police in the last few months of a technical nature are extremely important. The important one which I know the right hon. Gentleman found on his visit is a great improvement in morale.
I agree that there is a dilemma as to the purposes of the Provisional IRA, and of course I take the advice of the security forces. As for the right hon. Gentleman's insistence on no negotiations with the IRA, I have made the point before, and I do so again firmly. We shall continue to indicate that we require a genuine and sustained cessation of violence to all those who are talking in Northern Ireland. I want to make sure that there is no doubt that our view gets to the IRA at second hand and that we get its view as well.
It is important at this moment because everyone in Northern Ireland is listening. There will be no negotiations. But it matters at the moment for people in Northern Ireland not to listen to rumours or to speculation. It is an important time in Northern Ireland. What is most important of all is far greater than the views of politicians, whether here or there; it is the mood in the community, in both parts of the community, and they desperately want peace.

Mr. Molyneaux: Is the Secretary of State aware that the skilful manner in which he has to date handled a very delicate situation has inspired and will continue to inspire confidence and trust throughout the whole Northern Ireland community? Is he aware also that there will be widespread acceptance of the statement made earlier today by the Secretary of State for Defence that the planned reduction in the Army commitment has been largely possible because of the success of the actions of the Armed Forces and the security forces generally? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the necessity to secure a real state of return to lawful conditions and law enforcement in Northern Ireland before there can be any large-scale release of detainees, if only in the interests of the detainees, since it would serve no useful purpose if they were released to areas where law did not exist?

Mr. Rees: I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks. It may not have always been the case that people have understood that the party and the Government to which I am proud to belong, like former Conservative administrations, are not in business to sell the Protestants down any river. It is most important that that is realised. We are concerned with both communities in Northern Ireland and with the fears that both communities have. I only pray at this moment, when there is a chance, that people and politicians in all parties in Northern Ireland will take the opportunity presented to them. There will be no reduction in the Army unless there is a genuine and sustained cessation of violence, and I am very well aware of the need not to have a vacuum. Since last March there has been a reduction of three battalions in Northern Ireland. I am


sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that this has not weakened the Army's rôle in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Fitt: Although I fully support the steps taken by the Secretary of State and others in their attempts to bring about a permanent cease-fire, I should be less than honest to myself, to my constituents and to a large section of the population in Northern Ireland if I did not express my deep, sincere and heartfelt disappointment at the fact that the Secretary of State has omitted to mention the release of any detainees. The whole minority community in Northern Ireland and those who are bitterly opposed to the campaign of violence would be further alienated from giving any type of support to the campaign of violence of the Provisional IRA if effective steps were taken to bring detention to an end. So long as there is detention in Northern Ireland, it will be absolutely impossible to bring about a political solution. Even at this late stage and despite my deep disappointment, I appeal to the Secretary of State to look again at the matter of detention urgently and to bring about as many releases as he can. That is one sure and effective way of making certain that the IRA has no support in the community in the future.

Mr. Rees: I hope that my hon. Friend will read my statement carefully. He may not have heard what I said. The Government's policy is clear. If there is a sustained cessation of violence, my aim is to release all detainees. That is the aim of the Government, and it is a most important and laudable aim. However, something that I have learned about Northern Ireland is that there will not be an overnight answer to an age-old problem. We must proceed carefully and cautiously. But on that basis I want to see emergency units returned and I want to see a complete end to detention—not a fortnightly bargaining for people.

Mr. Beith: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Does he agree that this taste of peace has had a profound effect on the Northern Ireland community and that any organisation which sought a resumption of violence would be likely to lose the confidence of some of those who have supported it hitherto? Does the right hon. Gentleman

agree further, however, that the cessation of violence and the opportunities that it provides for the release of detainees applies equally to any violence which might develop in the rest of the United Kingdom in association with events in Northern Ireland? Is not this part of the process of the restoration of confidence in the community on which the release of detainees must depend?

Mr. Rees: On that most important point about the spread of violence here, it is not of course my departmental responsibility, but I assure the hon. Gentleman on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the firmest action will be taken against those who perpetrate violence on this side of the Irish Sea. The important thing at the moment is to consider all the possibilities. But I have in mind the present feeling in Northern Ireland. The Leader of the Opposition talked about Londonderry. In a developing way all over it is the people of Northern Ireland who will decide what the future is to be. At the moment they are welling up with a strong desire for peace. That is my view and understanding of the needs of the people in both communities.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no one will lightly forgive any person or organisation breaking this very fragile peace? Is he aware, further, that it is to be welcomed that he is not now bartering bodies against time but in many ways is putting everything on the plate to be accepted? It is the acceptance of the whole package which is all-important. It seems strange to me that many in this House do not seem to realise the new level to which the debate has been raised by my right hon. Friend, and that his very important statement will have a considerable effect on the situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt).

Mr. Rees: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has known Northern Ireland well for many years and has strong views. It may well be that history will look with horror at those who might try to break this cease-fire, in the face of the 1,200 dead and 11,000 injured. I say briefly but very sincerely that I am extremely grateful for his understanding of what I am trying to do to lift the level of the


discussions away from week to week and to try to break through at this moment.

Mr. Farr: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the way in which he has handled this very delicate matter so far. He may be interested to know that over Christmas in the south of Ireland the flags were out on many houses, not to celebrate Christmas but to celebrate the cease-fire.
Could I probe a little more on the purpose of the Provisionals in having this cease-fire? Does he regard this as an indication of some form of exhaustion on their part or does he lean towards the theory that they are perhaps developing a form of regrouping ready for action later?

Mr. Rees: There could be an interesting discussion and analysis of what lies beneath this—whether it is due only to the Feakle meeting, and so on. But I think the best thing I can do at the moment is to look on all people who are talking and thinking in Northern Ireland as being sincere and simply tell them that the British Government and the British House of Commons are acting with sincerity—and, until it is proved otherwise, I take them to be acting with sincerity as well.

Mr. Rose: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his very carefully-thought-out approach to de-escalation of the conflict could be the most positive contribution yet to an ultimate peaceful solution in Northern Ireland, and that he deserves the congratulations of the people of both these islands on his efforts? Would he also consider very carefully whether the time has come to withdraw troops from sensitive areas in Northern Ireland and to revise internment procedures, in the hope of further reciprocal gestures? Will he undertake to be steadfast in his determination not to be deflected by any threats there may be from extremist groups or politicians who wish to perpetuate the status quo and who oppose power sharing?

Mr. Rees: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his understanding of what the Government are aiming to do. With regard to sensitive areas, the Army has already altered its profile, and its profile can still alter very greatly if there is a genuine cease-fire. There is no doubt that with the best will on earth the Army, acting quite properly in areas to get information, can arouse strong feelings,

as we all would know if we lived in the areas concerned. I am looking very carefully at the rôle of the Army and at law and order in these communities, with the very active co-operation of the Services and the security forces, which understand this problem because they live there, and I know the work that they are doing.
With regard to detention procedures, my hon. Friend will recall that I said I had signed no ICOs since the beginning, and I believe that is the best beginning of procedures that I could make.

Mr. David James: The Secretary of State will know that I, too, have been over in Ireland for 10 days. I should like to offer him my warmest congratulations. Would he accept that in my judgment his firm and sensible statement on detention will be welcomed every bit as much in Dublin as it is being welcomed in Belfast?

Mr. Rees: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's views. I know that he has just been in Ireland, and his views on these matters are always of great interest.

NORTHERN IRELAND LEGISLATION

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a brief statement on the parliamentary handling of Northern Ireland legislation.
As the House knows, it is being invited this evening to agree arrangements whereby Northern Ireland subordinate legislation can be dealt with in Standing Committee with opportunities for debate of a period of up to 2½ hours at a convenient hour. Where applicable, Divisions will take place on the Floor of the House.
Secondly, in addition I intend to propose to the House that we set up a Northern Ireland Committee. This will meet for a limited number of occasions in each Session. The topics to be debated by the Committee will be a matter for consultation and will come before the House for approval. Northern Ireland Members will serve on this Committee as of right; other Members will be appointed separately for each debate.
Thirdly, while it will obviously be necessary for some Northern Ireland Bills to be taken on the Floor of the House, I hope it will be possible to handle some other Bills through the Second Reading Committee procedure, but again this will only be after discussion with those concerned.

Mr. Peyton: I think the whole House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the statement he has just made. I am sure he will agree that no hats will necessarily be thrown into the air at the prospect of another Committee being set up, but we hope the experiment will prove worth while and produce results.
I should like to put three points to him. First, what is his understanding of "a convenient hour"? Opinions vary on this. Secondly, I hope he will reflect upon the desirability or otherwise of having a discussion in one place and a Division in another. It seems to make a threadbare farce of our proceedings and I hope that that sort of thing will not be carried too far. Thirdly, probably at the moment it would be desirable for Northern Ireland Bills to be taken as far as possible on the Floor of the House rather than being subjected to the Second Reading procedure.

Mr. Short: I agree that "a convenient hour" is a relative matter, but as it is a Committee it could meet in the morning.
Secondly, with regard to a Division in one place and debate in another, I would point out that all Members of the House would be able to attend the Committee and of course the report of the debate would be available for hon. Members to read. But as matters would be sent to the Committee only by agreement, it is most unlikely that a Division would ever be required.
On the third point, I agree that there are some matters which obviously ought to be taken on the Floor of the House but, as in the case of United Kingdom Bills, where we can secure agreement between the two sides of the House it would seem better to send them to Committee for Second Reading.

Mr. Molyneaux: Would the Leader of the House accept that it is rather difficult to make constructive comments on the proposed arrangement in the absence of

any advance copy of the statement? May I ask him for an assurance that he will honour the undertaking he gave us earlier to discuss these matters fully with the Northern Ireland Members, now that agreement has obviously been reached with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, so that the procedures in the Committee, if it is established, can be meaningful?

Mr. Short: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know what has happened. I gave instructions that the statement should be made available. I am sorry about this and will look into it immediately.
On the second point, I have, of course, discussed this matter with the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, I think on more than one occasion. However, if he wishes, with his hon. Friends, to come to see me and discuss procedures in the Committee, I shall be very happy to talk to him about them.

Mr. McNamara: Although this gives an appropriate opportunity for the people in Northern Ireland to have their problems discussed within the House while the Six Counties are part of the United Kingdom and there is no devolved Parliament there, is there not nevertheless a danger, in the establishment of this Grand Committee, that powerful arguments that some are advancing for complete integration will be advanced, to the detriment of the people of both these islands?

Mr. Short: It is not a Grand Committee. I was very careful to call it a Northern Ireland Committee. It is a matter for discussion with Members concerned as to the number of debates and the number of days—perhaps four a year—when they meet in the morning to discuss a topic. But it is not a Grand Committee in the sense of the Welsh or Scottish Grand Committee.

Sir David Renton: Would the Leader of the House clarify still further this question of the matters to be discussed in Committee but voted upon on the Floor of the House? It would seem from what he says that, for example, an instrument affecting Northern Ireland could be subject to that procedure. Does it not also follow that the House could accept or reject an instrument but have no chance of amending it?

Mr. Short: That is true. I think that once we start amending subordinate legislation we shall be on a very difficult course. The procedure in my proposal is similar to that followed in the Merits Committee where United Kingdom delegated legislation is discussed and the Second Reading Committee where the debate takes place in a Committee and, if necessary, the Division takes place on the Floor of the House.

Mr. David Steel: I, too, did not receive an advance copy of the statement, and I find it difficult to understand it. Is it suggested that the Committee should combine the functions, loosely, of a Grand Committee with those of a Standing Committee, and that it should make a detailed examination of legislation? If so, I should attach some significance to the proposal that all Northern Ireland Members should sit on the Committee as of right. This seems to be correct, but it is quite a significant departure from the Standing Order, which up till now has limited the composition of Standing Committees to a reflection of the composition of the House as a whole. I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that something of that principle might apply usefully in the present situation with regard to the Scottish Committees.

Mr. Short: The last point raises a different matter. But this is not a Select Committee. This is a Committee designed specifically to have a number of debates each year on Northern Ireland matters. The topic to be discussed will possibly be agreed with the Members concerned before the debate and agreed by the House.

RESERVOIRS BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Reservoirs Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Coleman.]

BATTERED WIVES (RIGHTS TO POSSESSION OF MATRIMONIAL HOME)

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the courts to make an order giving the wife of a man who has been convicted of an act of violence against her the complete right of possession of the matrimonial home if she applies for such an order; and for purposes connected therewith.
I invite the House to turn for just a few minutes from the great national and international affairs, which are our proper concern, and to look at the problem of the unrelenting cruelty suffered by thousands of British women. I am astounded by the complacency with which Britain accepts this kind of cruelty—and, looking around the House, the indifference of hon. Members to it.
I cannot understand how thousands of women can be compelled to endure brutality on a massive scale while the House of Commons and the country are prepared to do very little about it. I know that the Government are actively concerned and are trying to deal with this problem. Nevertheless, I think that the House should be far more active about the problems of battered women. The evidence is vast and is to be found in every constituency in the land. In every town and city there are women who are being battered very severely. What I cannot understand is why we are not more concerned, because it is not only women who are being damaged but also children. By our failure to deal with this problem we are creating the child neurotics of today, the juvenile delinquents of tomorrow and probably the adult criminals of the future.
Why are we so unmoved about this situation? There are two real reasons. The first is that the House tends to confuse normal domestic disputes with real domestic brutality. This is an understandable failure to appreciate the difference between the two, but it is a failure with which we must deal. I am not speaking about normal domestic disputes or even about serious rows. I am speaking about real brutality—pregnant women being kicked, or women being beaten and even burned; the breaking of bones and the crushing of spirits. That is the kind


of problem with which we are faced. It is the kind of cruelty which would cause a mass outcry throughout the country and marches on Parliament if it were inflicted on a dog or a cat—but if it is inflicted on women apparently it does not really matter.
The second reason why we are so unconcerned is that our values have been eroded by our historic practice of sexual discrimination and our susceptibilities and sensibilities have become so blunted that we passively accept what we should passionately reject—the infliction of cruelty on vulnerable women.
The Bill will not deal with this whole problem. It is a limited Bill. However, I have already placed before the House a 15-point plan to deal with brutality against women, and, as I have said, the Government are dealing with it by setting up a Select Committee and in various other ways. Nevertheless, the Bill is necessary because the need is urgent in view of the present situation, which is that where there is brutality in a home the woman suffers by being subjected to violence, or, alternatively, she is kicked out—evicted. That is entirely wrong. Therefore, the Bill seeks to place the shoe on the other foot, so that if there is real violence the woman gets possession of the home and the man is evicted. If some people object to this—as I know they will—saying that this is a serious penalty for brutality, I reply that this sort of violence against women is a serious crime requiring serious penalties.
What the House must decide is this. If violence means homelessness—as it does ultimately—one of the parties must leave, the man or the woman. The House must decide who is to go. Is it to be the attacker or the attacked, the person committing the violence or the victim? Is it to be a man with fairly good earning power, or a woman with very little earning power? The Bill is quite unambiguous and straightforward. It says clearly that it is the man who must go and that the woman must stay. That is the whole purpose of this short Bill.
If the Bill is accepted, I can promise that in Committee I shall try to be reasonable. I shall not be inflexible. I know that the lawyers are concerned with any degree of inflexibility. I am quite prepared to be reasonable. I am not trying to penalise men who have ordinary domestic rows with their wives. I am prepared to say in Committee that a conviction should establish a presumption that possession of the home should go to the wife. That would be the one major concession I would make. I believe that this would meet all the objections. It would ensure that in nearly every case the woman takes possession of the home and the man is kicked out. It would give the man the right of appeal. That is as far as I ought to go in meeting objections.
We have enough disabled people in Britain without swelling their numbers by gratuitous violence. I believe that the Bill will deliver women from violence and that it will deter men from inflicting grievous bodily harm. It will also offer many children a hope of freedom from fear. If the Bill accomplishes any one of those things, I shall be proud to have presented it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. Joseph Ashton, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, Mr. John Hannam, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Mr. Neil Marten, Mrs. Millie Miller, Mrs. Renée Short, Mr. David Steel, Mr. Phillip Whitehead.

BATTERED WIVES (RIGHTS TO POSSESSION OF MATRIMONIAL HOME)

Mr. Jack Ashley accordingly presented a Bill to require the courts to make an order giving the wife of a man who has been convicted of an act of violence against her the complete right of possession of the matrimonial home if she applies for such an order; and for purposes connected therewith: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11th July and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

Orders of the Day — OFFSHORE PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended, considered.

New Clause

SAVING FOR LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES

The Secretary of State, so far as he considers it practicable so to do in conformity with the provisons of this Act, shall ensure that no works shall be executed pursuant to those provisions, the execution of which is not consistent with—

(a) the policies or proposals stated in any development plan (or any amendment thereof) submitted to the Secretary of State before 7th November 1974 under section 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 by the local planning authority of the district in which it is proposed to execute the works; or
(b) any amendment made by that authority to those policies or proposals and agreed by the Secretary of State.—[Mr. Grimond.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Morton): It is proposed that Government Amendment No. 2 be taken with new Clause 1.

Mr. Grimond: Hon. Members will recall that one of the most important points which emerged during Second Reading of the Bill was that the expedited acquisition procedure would not override planning procedures and would be used only where planning permission had been obtained in the normal manner. I put down an amendment in Committee to give effect to that and the Government said that it was their intention that that should be so. They have now themselves put down amendments making that clear. All this new clause would do is to avoid any conflict or confusion over planning.
I believe that we have to reconsider the whole idea of planning as it was popular 20 years ago. The static plans which attempted to lay down the law for all time have done a great deal of harm. They have attempted to apply procedures everywhere, in town and country, in big

and little towns, quite unsuitably in many areas. As a result, areas have been designated for particular purposes which have never materialised. In other cases we have created great concentrations of housing and industry with very bad social results.
Some planning, however, is essential in connection with oil and its impact on certain areas. I have a particular experience of Orkney and Shetland. A great deal of planning has been done, as the Government know, under legislation which, passed by this House, local authorities were bound to carry out. Many hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent in Orkney and Shetland on local plans, particular plans and structure plans, and it would be absurd if, after all that, the decisions made upon these plans could be overridden by the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State's Amendment No. 2, which the Government will explain, says, as I understand it, that an expedited acquisition order shall not be made in respect of any land unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the land is required for a purpose which has been accepted as suitable under the planning procedures. As I understand it, it differs from my new clause in that it does not deal with works, so that it will be possible for the Secretary of State to acquire quite properly land for a purpose designated within the structure plan but to authorise or to undertake on it works which in the view of the planning authorities might be undesirable.
I do not know what the Government will say. They may say that such a situation is so unlikely that we need not legislate against it, and that if the Secretary of State were to acquire land for a proper purpose under a plan it is unlikely that urgent construction would be contrary to the plan, but many times in previous debates it has been said that we have to legislate according to the strict intentions of this House and cannot rely on the good intentions of Ministers. My new clause allows discretion to the Secretary of State. It says he is bound to observe it only so far as it is practicable to do so. It is designed to clear up any confusion which might arise between planning authorities and the Secretary of State, and it is also designed to obviate further delay.
4.45 p.m.
Anybody in close touch with oil developments must be very conscious that in all kinds of areas there is now great anxiety over delays and that one of the matters which contribute to delay is confusion over the Government's intentions. Rig builders, those in oil industries of various kinds, and the oil companies themselves, are becoming very worried because they do not understand what their obligations may be or what changes may take place in the Government's policy for oil. I know of undertakings which would be considerably worried if they thought that having gone through the proper planning procedures and obtained planning permission for the execution of certain works the Secretary of State would then come in with new proposals and frustrate their intentions.
I am grateful to the Government for having put down their amendments and I appreciate that they clear up the position about planning procedures in relation to land, and generally, but I would like to hear what they have to say of the situation as I see it which exists in regard to works.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Millan): As Amendment No. 2 is being taken with this one perhaps I could explain what that amendment does. When we come to it in its appropriate place I will move it formally.
Amendment No. 2 makes explicit in the Bill, and therefore meets the wish which was widely expressed during Second Reading and in Committee on the Bill, that no expedited procedure for acquisition shall take place under the Bill unless and until planning permission has actually been obtained and unless the land is required for a purpose in accordance with the planning permission. This explicit statement in the Bill of a point that I made on numerous occasions—that normal planning procedures would apply—will be very warmly welcomed and will reassure a number of people who were worried about the absence of such an explicit provision in the Bill, despite Government assurances on the point.
In view of the considerable discussions we had about this point at earlier stages of the Bill I do not think it is necessary for me to explain the amendment in

detail. It is self-explanatory. It provides that there must either be planning permission granted under the normal application made under the 1972 Act or planning permission granted by general development order or no development at all involved for the purposes of the Act. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), with others, welcomes this amendment.
The right hon. Gentleman's new clause, as I understand it, deals exclusively and specifically with the question of works that may be carried out under this Bill on a site which has been acquired by the Government under the Bill, and provides that any works carried out shall be in accordance with policies or purposes stated in a development plan. Without going into the technicalities of development plans perhaps I should point out, first of all, that the amendment is defective because a reference to the development plan under Section 5 of the 1972 Act as outlined in the right hon. Gentleman's new clause is a reference to a structure plan, and there were no structure plans in existence in November 1974; so that from that point of view the new clause is completely defective.

Mr. Grimond: The Minister will appreciate that clauses drafted by back benchers are apt to be not quite perfect, but he must be well aware that structure plans are being drawn up, and it would be foolish for the House to try to pretend that structure plans will not exist and be very important in relation to oil.

Mr. Millan: I have not come to the question of future structure plans. I am simply pointing out, as I am entitled to do, that since there were no structure plans submitted to the Secretary of State before 7th November 1974, which is the date chosen by the right hon. Gentleman, the clause would not bite on anything in any way. So even for that technical reason I cannot recommend the House to accept the clause.
The works which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind—because these are the only works dealt with under the Bill—are covered either by Clause 10, being works for facilitating the execution of relevant operations, or works covered by Clause 8 dealing with works for making acquired land suitable for other purposes. Normally works of development on one of


these sites will be by the developer himself and will have been subject to the normal planning considerations, and since planning permission and all the rest will have been gone through before the site was acquired there will be no question of works, by the developer or the Government, which are not consistent with the purposes for which planning permission was granted. That is the basic point with which we are concerned here.
The only possible theoretical difficulty which might arise from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view is that on publicly-owned land the Government could carry out works without planning permission. That is not peculiar to the Bill. It applies to Crown development or Crown land generally. There is a safeguard in the Bill, in that, from the amendment I have described, we shall know generally what the site is to be used for, and, therefore, there can be no question of a Crown development which is contrary to or inconsistent with the general use for development which has already been agreed. Even when Crown development takes place there is a non-statutory procedure which includes, if necessary, arrangements for a public inquiry. Therefore, even if the theoretical difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman had in mind were to arise the provisions of existing legislation, or rather the provisions of the non-statutory procedure, would safeguard the position.
Therefore, because the new clause is defectively drafted, and because, in any case, with the amendment I have described and with the existing non-statutory procedure, I do not see that the kind of difficulty the right hon. Gentleman has in mind can possibly arise, I would recommend the House not to accept the new clause.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I welcome the Government amendment, which clarifies a point we raised at an earlier stage. I have one or two reservations about it but I thank the Minister for the way in which he described it and for promising to move it later. It makes absolutely clear and beyond peradventure that in the powers exercised under the Bill the Government will use planning procedures prior to using the powers of the expedited acquisition procedure—and that they will use them first. That provides a reassurance to those

who criticised this point on an earlier occasion.
I have a point of detail to raise. The Minister said that the power of the Crown not to have to comply with planning procedures was not peculiar to the Bill. He is correct, and it is because it is not peculiar to the Bill that we raised the matter earlier that the Crown, because it enjoyed a special position on planning procedures, might use that position in the acquisition of lands for the purposes of offshore oil development.
The Bill is concerned with taking a new power to the Crown in enabling it to acquire land for these purposes. While that power is not peculiar to the Bill it is relevant to it, and that is why I am particularly grateful to the Minister for bringing forward the amendment.
I have one point of greater substance concerning planning procedures. The Bill does nothing in itself to expedite planning procedures. Everything in the Bill will be subject to planning procedures, and that makes us wonder precisely what the Bill will achieve in terms of speeding up development. Will the Minister say a brief word, on planning procedures generally, on what the Minister is to write into the legislation through the amendment, and how his discussions have been proceeding with the Faculty of Advocates and others with a view to speeding up the mechanics of these procedures? This will be a help to those who believe that speeding up is necessary. Does the Minister see anything effective resulting from his discussions? If the Minister can give us clarification on that point we could deal with it now.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: It is worth while congratulating the Minister on presenting this amendment and others which in Committee he promised he would bring forward. We still have deep objections to the Bill but it is an intelligent way of tackling legislation for the Minister to explore new territories and to bring forward amendments to meet some of the views expressed by hon. Members.
However, one of the things that concerns me is how much protection the amendment will offer. If the Minister intends to call in all such inquiries, there will be, in the Scottish Office, a sort of interdepartmental inquiry into the planning requirements of the country or at


least of certain given areas. At this stage, is it the Minister's intention to hold public inquiries wherever possible so that objectors to proposals can have an opportunity of cross-examining the expert witnesses who might give evidence? If such an assurance could be given, it would be welcomed.
This is an important point, because if there is an intervention in support of an application from the Department of Energy on the grounds that a certain number of platforms require to be built in order to get so much oil within a given period, this might influence the Minister, who might be persuaded to go against the natural planning inclination. This point was made by the Scotsman in an editorial last Saturday when it stated that this could be an unequal contest and that decisions might not be made on clearly discernible principles. It alleged that the Secretary of State for Scotland had over-ridden the objections of local residents
on the ground that the national interest in the speedy exploitation of oil requires the use of Portavadie in order to catch the 1977 floating-out season.
If the Minister can give an assurance about the rôle of public inquiries in the reserved planning procedures in relation to the expedited acquisition orders, the House will be grateful.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Millan: With regard to speeding up planning procedures within the present statutory framework, we have had a report from the working group to which the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) referred. I hope that circular will go to local authorities within the next two weeks or so giving its results.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the report of the working group be published or made available to others?

Mr. Millan: It was basically an internal document, but the substance will be given in the circular.
As to the general question of dealing with the planning applications, what we have said is not that we shall call in all oil-related applications. I think that the specific reference was to oil production platform applications in the Firth of Clyde, called in for reasons which the

hon. Member for Argyle (Mr. MacCormick) will appreciate as being necessary. There was a spate of applications, and we want to avoid proliferation of sites.
To call in an application has no implication one way or another on the question whether there will be a public inquiry. That depends on a number of factors, including the strength and variety of the opposition to the application, how far additional information is required about the application, and so on. The Portkil application was called in, and is now subject to a public inquiry, so calling in an application does not mean that there will be no public inquiry.
But if under the normal planning procedures there is no need for a public inquiry, in the Secretary of State's view, a public inquiry will not necessarily take place. The Campbeltown decision was made without a public inquiry. The Portavadie decision was made after a public inquiry. The pattern is not fixed but depends on the circumstances.
There is no intention to substitute interdepartmental consultation for a public inquiry. That is not open to the Secretary of State. If the hon. Gentleman reads the planning decision letters and the conditions attached to them in respect of the Campbeltown and Portavadie decisions made last week, he will see from the conditions laid down, and the detail to which the letters have gone, that in both cases the matters under consideration received full treatment by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The decision letters were very detailed.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 1

ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR PURPOSES CONNECTED WITH OFFSHORE PETROLEUM

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'exploitation' and insert:
'extraction and onward despatch'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this amendment we are to debate the following amendments:
No. 41, in page 1, line 14, leave out 'exploitation' and insert:
'extraction and onward despatch'.


No. 42, in Clause 20, page 13, line 22, leave out 'exploitation' and insert:
'extraction and onward despatch'.

Mr. Fletcher: The terminology in this part of the Bill was the subject of considerable debate in Committee. The object then, as now, was to make obvious just what development powers are in the Bill and to relate them as reasonably as possible to the extraction and onward transmission of North Sea oil. The Minister tried to clarify the matter in Committee by tabling an amendment which has been incorporated in the amended Bill. That amendment, helpfully, specifically excludes the refining of crude petroleum, except so far as is necesary for its onward transmission.
So far, so good, but when exceptional powers are being taken by Ministers, those Ministers should not be bashful about making exceptions to the powers to the fullest possible extent. Better still, they should state positively the specific items for which they wish the powers to be granted. That is why in the amendments we are taking as our starting point the desirability of deleting "exploitation" and inserting.
extraction and onward despatch
In re-examining the matter we cannot find anything in the use of the word "extraction" which would alter the purpose of the Bill, but it would define more clearly the method by which the Bill is intended to be employed.
We do not believe that any activity truly related to the development of offshore petroleum would be excluded by the amendment. If the Minister believes otherwise, perhaps he would tell us just which activities would not be included. We feel that the terminology of the Bill, even as amended, will give Ministers an over-powered general purpose vehicle rather than the limited and specific powers that the development seem to require.
In Committee, the Minister expressed his willingness to reconsider the question. I hope that he has done so to the benefit of hon. Members on both sides of the House who reflect the views of many people who are concerned about the matter.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: As is customary, I should declare that I recently went to the United States and Canada

to study the ramifications of the oil industry and energy, a trip for which I did not pay. It is only right that I should declare that to the House.
If the Government intend to use the word "exploitation" in oil terms, then it means only for the development of oil on the continental shelf. I do not think that there can be anything objectionable if it means only the acquisition of land to ensure that the oil is lifted and recovered by mechanical platforms and devices.
As I did not serve on the Committee, I am happy to note that the Government have included subsection (3), which excludes refining. That seems to imply, from the intention of the clause, the acquisition of land for the purpose of developing offshore petroleum, which would curtail the operation of the clause for the acquisition of land for any other purposes. But the Secretary of State should make this perfectly clear. Does he intend that it should be used for purposes beyond what is normally indicated? Does he intend to give the word "exploitation" purely and simply a dictionary meaning, which would entitle the Government to go into further areas for the acquisition of land? If the Minister will give an assurance on the matter, I am sure that it will satisfy hon. Members on the Opposition benches.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Smith): The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) raised the matter in some detail in Committee, where I undertook to reexamine the terminology in the light of the fears he expressed. We have done so, and we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the effort he has made in trying to find alternative phrasing, avoiding the use of the word "exploitation".
However, there are some difficulties. Basically, we face the perennial problem of legislation which is trying to deal not only with what we know now but with what is likely to happen. In a world where fast-changing technology is one of the hallmarks of the oil industry, we must be careful not to limit the powers to what is required now. We must have powers relevant to technology that will be in operation in perhaps only a few years' time. We cannot come back to Parliament every month or two to clarify legislation. The difficulty that we find


with the definition which has been put forward as an alternative is that I am advised that it does not cover the reception and storage of oil. Further, it might not cover the processing, short of refining, which is necessary for onward transmission. If we did not have that practical problem to face I would be inclined to accept the amendment.
It is because of the practical problems that we do not believe the amendment would cover adequately that I must ask the House to resist the amendment. I think that I have given an explanation which the Opposition might find satisfactory. Perhaps the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North will accept that even as things stand there are some difficulties and that we do not know what future technology will provide.

Mr. Skeet: Is the Minister prepared to give an assurance now that the acquisition of land will be limited to the purpose of extraction and will not extend to other spheres?

Mr. Smith: The difficulty is that we want to give ourselves a certain amount of elbow room. That is why we have chosen the wider rather than the narrower definition. It is difficult to look into the future. The Government's intention is to provide the necessary facilities for extracting oil. We would not use the word "exploitation" unless we wanted some flexibility. I am not averse to settling fears, but I cannot look into the future of oil technology.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for having considered this matter and for what he has said. However, I feel that he has to some extent missed the point that we are trying to make. In moving the amendment my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) said that the clause as it stands, and its phraseology in particular, is all-embracing. It covers almost anything to do with the exploration or exploitation of oil.
As the hon. Gentleman admits, exploitation covers a multitude of different activities. It covers such a multitude of different oil-related activities that the Government themselves in Committee brought forward an amendment which

restricted the Bill's all-embracing powers. At least it took away one of the multitude of activities related to refining. It took away one particular power because the Government's intention was to remove an operation which they did not intend to be covered. That illustrates how all-embracing are the powers relating to exploitation.
In Committee we put forward an amendment which confined matters simply to extraction. By withdrawing that amendment we accepted the spirit of what the Minister said in Committee. The use of the word "extraction" alone would tend to be too restrictive and would limit the powers of the Bill beyond what we believe is necessary. What we said originally in Committee, what my hon. Friend said again this afternoon, as I repeat, is that we are desperately worried that a Bill that gives such tremendous powers to the Government should not specify them more closely.
The spirit of the amendment is also included in the next group of amendments which we shall be discussing. If we can restrict the powers of the Bill to those that we believe are necessary we shall make the Bill in many ways much less objectionable than it might be otherwise. If the Bill extends certain powers beyond those which we believe are necessary there will be left in people's minds a measure of doubt as to the Bill's future application. Secondly, if such powers are necessary for particular purposes which are directly related to exploration, extraction, onward transmission and storage terminals, I do not accept the Minister's argument that we necessarily want to keep the matter open for a future hypothetical situation when some need or purpose may arise which we do not see today.
With great respect, the Minister is asking the House and the country to take far too much on trust. We are prepared to legislate in this House for what may be necessary and foreseeable now. We accept within certain limitations that it is in the country's interests to speed up exploration and, in some circumstances and in certain areas, the exploitation of offshore oil. We do not believe that it is necessary to go beyond the purposes which "exploitation" covers.
5.15 p.m.
The Minister has fairly said that he accepts that we tried to make an improvement in Committee by putting forward the words "onward transmission". He suggests that they might be taken to exclude such matters as reception, storage and processing for onward transmission. He has put forward only three restrictions. If that is so, and if the amendment, which represents our second attempt, still does not cover everything, there are further stages which allow the Government to table suitable amendments. Alternatively, I can arrange for the necessary amendments to be tabled. It is our purpose to make legislation specific so that it can be understandable outside the House. Legislation should be specific rather than all-embracing and possessing blanket provisions.
I believe that the Government are asking the House to approve blanket powers for hypothetical situations. It is possible to restrict such powers more specifically within the Bill in the way that we have attempted. I am prepared to ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment if the Government can give us an assurance that they will consider the matter again and cover the points that the Minister has mentioned. I agree that they should be covered at a later stage. If the Government are to be adamant and wish to maintain the blanket power represented by "exploitation", I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House. As it stands the Bill is far too wide. I want to see within it the powers that are necessary. I do not want to see within it hypothetical powers for the future any more than unnecessary powers. Unless the Government can give me an assurance on this point I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support me in the Lobby.

Mr. Smith: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. We have considered the matter carefully. I do not think that further consideration will give us a more original approach. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is being entirely fair to the Government. We went a long way towards meeting the one practical fear which has been expressed—namely, the fear about refining.

We took that on board and specifically excluded it from the Bill. I am not aware of any other practical fear being expressed. Most of the argument that we have had from the hon. Gentleman has been theoretical rather than practical.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: rose—

Mr. Smith: I have already mentioned one or two matters that the amendment does not cover. We have genuinely considered the matter and we have carefully considered the amendment. I am grateful for the effort that has been put into it. We feel that we must leave some leeway for the future. Oil technology changes extremely quickly.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Minister accuses me of being theoretical regarding the future. To some extent I am theoretical in that I do not want the Bill to cover hypothetical situations. With respect, I am being no more theoretical than the Minister in that he wants the Bill to cover situations which he says may arise in the future. If that is not theoretical I do not know what is.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman must accept that I have put forward practical objections arising from the amendment. We have considered the matter carefully. We have made a major concession in making it clear that refineries are totally excluded from the operation of the Bill, In the fast-moving world of oil technology the Government must have some flexibility. We have gone as far as we can. I cannot give any further assurances to the hon. Gentleman. We have gone a long way towards meeting the wishes of the House. I must ask the House to resist the amendment.

Mr. Skeet: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to give an assurance that the word "exploitation" will have the interpretation which the oil companies give it?

Mr. Smith: I am not prepared to give any such assurance. That would be handing over the interpretation of legislation to the oil companies, which we are not prepared to do. We are not prepared to adopt interpretations put forward by oil companies.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 204.

Division No. 43.]
AYES
[5.20 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Grylls, Michael
Parkinson, Cecil


Aitken, Jonathan
Hall, Sir John
Pattie, Geoffrey


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Banks, Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Beith, A. J.
Hannam, John
Rathbone, Tim


Bell, Ronald
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Hawkins, Paul
Reid, George


Benyon, W.
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Biffen, John
Henderson, Douglas
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hooson, Emlyn
Rifkind, Malcolm


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brittan, Leon
Hunt, John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Brotherton, Michael
Hurd, Douglas
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sainsbury, Tim


Buck, Antony
James, David
Scott, Nicholas


Budgen, Nick
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Bulmer, Esmond
Jessel, Toby
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Burden, F. A.
Jopling, Michael
Shepherd, Colin


Carlisle, Mark
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shersby, Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kershaw, Anthony
Sims, Roger


Churchill, W. S.
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Spence, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lamont, Norman
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Cockcroft, John
Lane, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lawrence, Ivan
Sproat, Iain


Cope, John
Lawson, Nigel
Stainton, Keith


Corrie, John
Lloyd, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Costain, A. P.
Loveridge, John
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Crawford, Douglas
Luce, Richard
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Crowder, F. P.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
MacCormick, Iain
Stradling Thomas, J.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McCrindle, Robert
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Macfarlane, Neil
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Durant, Tony
MacGregor, John
Tebbit, Norman


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Elliott, Sir William
Madel, David
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, George


Eyre, Reginald
Mates, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fairgrieve, Russell
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Trotter, Neville


Farr, John
Mayhew, Patrick
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Fell, Anthony
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mills, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Moate, Roger
Weatherill, Bernard


Fookes, Miss Janet
Monro, Hector
Welsh, Andrew


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Montgomery, Fergus
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Fox, Marcus
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Wiggin, Jerry


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Wigley, Dafydd


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Neave, Airey
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Goodhart, Philip
Neubert, Michael



Goodhew, Victor
Onslow, Cranley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Mr. Hamish Gray and


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Fred Silvester.


Grist, Ian
Pardoe, John





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cryer, Bob


Archer, Peter
Buchan, Norman
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Armstrong, Ernest
Buchanan, Richard
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)


Ashton, Joe
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dalyell, Tam


Atkinson, Norman
Campbell, Ian
Davidson, Arthur


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carmichael, Neil
Deakins, Eric


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bates, Alf
Cartwright, John
Delargy, Hugh


Bean, R. E.
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cohen, Stanley
Dempsey, James


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Coleman, Donald
Doig, Peter


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Dormand, J. D.


Booth, Albert
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Corbett, Robin
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Dunn, James A.


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Dunnett, Jack




Eadie, Alex
Kaufman, Gerald
Roderick, Caerwyn


Edge, Geoff
Kelley, Richard
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Kerr, Russell
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Kinnock Neil
Rooker, J. W.


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lambie, David
Roper, John


English, Michael
Lamborn, Harry
Rose, Paul B.


Ennals, David
Lamond, James
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rowlands, Ted


Evans, John (Newton)
Lee, John
Sandelson, Neville


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Selby, Harry


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Litterick, Tom
Sillars, James


Flannery, Martin
Lomas, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Small, William


Ford, Ben
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Freeson, Reginald
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Spearing, Nigel


George, Bruce
McCartney, Hugh
Spriggs, Leslie


Gilbert, Dr John
McElhone, Frank
Stallard, A. W.


Golding, John
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)


Gourlay, Harry
Mackintosh, John P.
Stoddart, David


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maclennan, Robert
Stott, Roger


Grant, John (Islington C)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Grocott, Bruce
McNamara, Kevin
Swain, Thomas


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Madden, Max
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Magee, Bryan
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hamling, William
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Harper, Joseph
Marquand, David
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tinn, James


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tomlinson, John


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mendelson, John
Urwin, T. W.


Hooley, Frank
Millan, Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Horam, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)
Moonman, Eric
Ward, Michael


Huckfield, Les
Murray, Ronald King
Watkins, David


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Newens, Stanley
Weetch, Ken


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Noble, Mike
Weitzman, David


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Wellbeloved, James


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orbach, Maurice
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hunter, Adam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
White, James (Pollok)


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Ovenden, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Park, George
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Janner Greville
Parry, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Perry, Ernest
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Prescott, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


John, Brynmor
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Price, William (Rugby)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Radice, Giles
Woodall, Alec


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Woof, Robert


Jones, Parry (East Flint)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Judd, Frank
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Mr. Laurie Favitt.

Question accordingly negatived.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'include in particular' and insert 'consist of'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this, we can also discuss the following amendments:
No. 25, page 2, line 1, leave out 'sources of material' and insert
'schools, clinics, health centres, community centres, sports grounds, recreational facilities'.
No. 26, in page 2, line 5, a end insert
'or improvement of communities affected by such development or use of land'.

Mr. Wilson: This is a continuation of the argument we had on the preceding set of amendments. It seeks to define and

to restrict the purposes of this measure to certain items mentioned in Clause 1(2), namely classifications (a), (b), (c), (d). The reason for this is that without such a restriction we are left with the general guideline in the Bill contained in the phrase "include in particular". This clause allows any Government to go beyond the specific purposes enumerated.
The argument has been advanced by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) that it is one of the purposes of an Opposition to seek to restrict the wording of Acts to matters which are envisaged or are likely to be envisaged at the time when the Act is in force. Without the restriction proposed here, this and future Governments will have the opportunity to extend this measure far beyond the purposes for which it is presently envisaged. I do not


think the amendment will meet with the drafting disadvantages said to exist in connection with the previous amendments since, if my memory serves me right, no such point was made in Committee.
I come to Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 and to this question of "sources of material". On looking at the arguments put forward by the Government in Committee it seems that there is little protection afforded by the planning procedures to which reference was made. It is possible that there will be competing planning applications concerning a certain quarry or source of aggregate. Then it may be possible for the Government to intervene with the expedited acquisition procedure and to take over that source of material for the benefit of someone who may not be commercially active in the locality. Earlier I referred to an unhappy example which seems to have occurred at Loch Kishorn.
Without going over the arguments again, I recommend the Minister to accept this proposal. The amendment would still allow the Government, by the compulsory acquisition procedure, to take over sources of material if at any time they considered that to be essential. In the course of the construction of the platform yard the need for the sources of material arises at a later date than that which might be anticipated as the date for the acquisition of land on which to build the yard.
I come to community development, which is dealt with in Clause 1(2)(b) There is a reference to housing as one of the classes of purpose for which the land may be required. I would not object to that social need being taken care of with the same sense of expedition as the Government might consider necessary for their use of the special powers for the early acquisition of land. If we can justify that commercial judgment, we also justify the need for social and community development taking place at the same time.
I am aware that powers may be available to the Minister under other legislation which enables him to take over ground for certain other important purposes connected with the development of communities. If the Minister accepts that housing should figure in the special purposes, the other things mentioned in Amendment 25, namely schools, clinics, health centres, community centres, sports

grounds and recreational facilities, should also be included. I cannot see the arguments against this. We all know that one of the worst features of community development has been that houses have been built, to be followed many years later by the other facilities which help to make the community a living community. I refer once again to the example of Alness New Town. I have heard complaints about a lack of community facilities. Even if this were not to apply to Alness, there are other possibilities which can be envisaged.

Mr. Grimond: I support Amendment No. 24. These matters were debated fully in Committee and I will not make a long speech. The anxieties which gave rise to this amendment and to Amendment No. 40 upon which we have just voted certainly persist. In my view Clause 1 is too wide. It is drafted much too vaguely. It makes me think that the Government do not know exactly why they want the Bill. I sometimes think that the Bill is too late, too vague and may well do more harm than good. I beg the Government to think again. Not only is the whole shopping list of possibilities included but at the moment anything else which is relevant to oil is encompassed. The spirit behind the amendment deserves support.
I have doubts about Amendments Nos. 25 and 26, not because I dispute the need which they underline, which is very great. In Shetland we need health centres and so on. I am deeply worried about the whole progress of the services in Shetland.
Is it right to encourage the Secretary of State to intervene in all this? I would prefer the local authorities to be given resources to carry out these things themselves. Resources are certainly necessary. Therefore, I have some reservations about adding to the immense list in Clause 1, but I am wholly in agreement with the principle which animates the amendment. When the Bill goes to another place I hope that the Government will clarify their minds on exactly what they want and will try to make more precise the drafting of Clause 1.

Mr. Hamish Gray: I support the amendments. I agree with what has been said on Amendment No. 24. I also support Amendments Nos. 25 and 26, but I have certain


reservations on them, principally of drafting. However carefully the amendments have been conceived there is always a danger that something may be left out so that it might be necessary in future to amend the Act, as it would be, to include something which we consider to be essential.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) referred to Alness, which is in my constituency. It offers a good example of what we seek to avoid by the amendments. In Alness there is a series of attractive housing sites on which are living the people who work in the oil industry. Regrettably, and largely because of the lack of local and Government finance, it has not been possible to provide all the facilities which are necessary. For example, a new swimming pool is being built which, because of the lack of finance, is not as elaborate as we would wish. There are certain restrictions attached to it which in an area which is developing as quickly as Easter Ross should not be necessary.
The amendment also deals with health centres. Even in parts of the country which are developing at a normal rate health centres are not yet provided. In an area such as Easter Ross which is developing so quickly health centres are most important.
I support the principle of the amendments. Perhaps the details are not so expertly drafted as we might wish but I fully support the principle involved and the thinking behind it.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) on moving Amendment No. 24. Our failure with the previous amendment makes it even more desirable for us to add our support to this group of amendments. I share the reservations expressed by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) about Amendments Nos. 25 and 26.
The Government should think harder and more specifically. They should do their homework more thoroughly in legislation of this kind so as to minimise doubts about their intentions. Nothing could be more desirable than the removal of doubt about what the Government are trying to do by many of their policies. By

failing to be specific the Government leave the people either in ignorance or in puzzlement about what they have in mind.
5.45 p.m.
In legislation which contains such powers as the Bill contains the Government should contribute to confidence in their purpose and not create more doubts and fears and a general lack of confidence about the future. I do not believe that the Government have tried hard enough or that their efforts have been successful, and I therefore support Amendment No. 24.
Taking the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), I declare an interest. I should have done so earlier. During the recess I spent almost two weeks in the United States and Canada on energy business, a trip that I did not pay for out of my own pocket.

Mr. Millan: Amendment No. 24 and Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are interconnected although they have contrary consequences. Amendment No. 24 confines Clause 1 completely to the provisions which would then be set out in subsection (2).
May I remind the House how the clause is constructed? Subsection (1) contains the general power for the acquisition of land. Subsection (2) gives some examples of that, but it is very much related to the possibility of whether or not there can be an expedited acquisition order. In subsection (5) the reference back for expedited acquisition orders is limited to subsection (2) and not to subsection (1). It is important to keep that distinction in mind because both in Committee and on Report certain amendments have been contrary to arguments which have been put forward on other amendments or at earlier stages.
The effect of Amendment No. 24 and of using "consist of" rather than "include in particular" in subsection (2) is that there would be no general power for the Government to acquire land for the purposes of oil exploitation or exploration but only for the limited purposes set out in subsection (2). The effect of the amendment is that everything in the Bill would be subject to the expedited acquisition procedure, which is not the way in which


the Bill is drafted. The Government would not be able to acquire, even by agreement voluntarily, or compulsorily through the full compulsory procedure, anything that is not mentioned in subsection (2). That would include land for supply bases, pipe coating works, storage facilities and several other purposes. Amendment No. 24 removes that necessary degree of flexibility from the Bill, and I cannot recommend its acceptance.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are directed to subsection (2). They are specifically related always to the possibility of an expedited acquisition under the further provisions of the clause. The deletion of "sources of material" removes from the Bill a matter which is of extreme importance when dealing with a remote production platform site. If the question of urgency arises generally, it will certainly arise in relation to sources of material because that is likely to be a matter of intrinsic and essential importance and urgency in developing the site.
Secondly, it is important that we should arrive at the right solution over sources of material. It is essentially a matter for planning permission, and certainly planning procedures will be undergone. However, there is also the question of urgency to be considered if the project is to get going. In a particular area there may be a choice of sources of materials, one of which can be obtained quickly because there will be no difficulty about the compulsory purchase of land or the acquisition of land by voluntary means, and another of which can be obtained less quickly because of difficulties in obtaining land even after planning permission has been given. The second source may be preferable to the first in terms of impact on the local community, problems of transport and access to the site.
To take Kishorn as an example, although I do not want to enter into the merits of any particular application, hon. Members who know the area will appreciate that access to the site and the way in which materials are allowed in are of crucial importance in terms of impact on the local community. Therefore, to remove the provision from the possibility of expedited acquisition procedures may, far from pleasing local inhabitants, displease them considerably. It may mean that in view of the urgency of the situation

a less favourable decision will be reached about the sources of material, resulting in a greater and more deleterious impact on the local community than would occur if the expedited acquisition procedures remained in the Bill. The sources of materials, such as quarries and so on, may give rise to local difficulties, and what the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Gordon Wilson) seeks may exacerbate local feelings rather than alleviate them. I am not disposed to agree to such a deletion from subsection (2).
Amendment No. 25 seeks to insert, among others, the words
schools, clinics, health centres …".
In dealing with services or facilities required in meeting the needs of persons employed or to be employed in connection with oil-related activities, any facility related to such activities is already included in the provision. It includes schools, houses and hospital facilities. Therefore, there is no difficulty in applying the procedure if need be to the acquiring of land for the purpose of educational or medical facilities.
I should mislead the House if I were to say that the Government in normal circumstances would wish to use the expedited procedures in connection with sports grounds or recreational facilities, where the normal procedures of compulsory acquisition would apply without the expedited procedure. In other words, I should be reluctant to set out in the Bill the fact that that would be a matter which we should have in mind. If we needed expedited acquisition procedures to bring about community developments that could be done, but it would be misleading to write such things specifically into the Bill. If that were done, we should also have to mention all sorts of other facilities, and it would give the impression that we simply wanted to use the expedited acquisition procedures regardless of circumstances, which undoubtedly would be the target of criticism in this House.
The same considerations apply to Amendment No. 26 which seeks to include the concept of the improvement of communities. I do not suggest that it is not extremely important that everything should be done to achieve a balanced development, but the wording of the


amendment is very wide and would import into the Bill the implication that we intend to use expedited acquisition procedures for anything connected with oil-related developments. That would be quite wrong. We are saying that we should use the procedure where the matter is urgent and where facilities should be provided quickly, but that we do not intend to use the procedure unnecessarily for a whole variety of purposes.
The group of amendments in one sense limits the clause. In a second sense it widens the expedited acquisition procedures and applies them to any acquisition by means of the Bill. That is going much more widely than we intend. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, having heard that explanation, will withdraw the amendments.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am grateful to the Minister for his long examination of the terms of the amendments. Had that argument been deployed in Committee, I might have taken steps to draft amendments on Report in a different way, but the Minister did not take a similar view at an earlier stage.
I was not impressed by the hon. Gentleman's argument on the alteration that is sought to be made to Clause 1(2) involving the inclusion of the vital words "consist of" instead of "include in particular". I think the Minister was working round to what I was intending to imply—namely, a restriction of the general powers of the Bill and a removal of the degree of flexibility since it might be thought to give too wide a degree of discretion. I should not wish to back down on what I said about Amendment No. 24.
There may be something in the Minister's argument on the question of sources

of material, but in the present Bill the Government are seeking to make available land in Scotland for the benefit of large and no doubt powerful construction companies and commercial interests. Therefore, we believe that the Bill should provide some protection for local interests. It would help the situation if expedited acquisition orders did not apply to sources of material. The Minister's arguments were most ingenious, but I regret that I did not find them convincing.

As for the Minister's comments about Amendment No. 26 relating to the improvement of community facilities, I must remind him that certain criticisms have been made on this point by other hon. Members but where one seeks, as in the Bill, the advancement of commercial interests in regard to the building up of sites which might affect local communities, it is important to give some priority to their development.

If the Government had excluded from the provision the concept of housing, his argument would have had more validity in terms of rights being available to take over land for various unspecified purposes but purposes ultimately related to social development. But the Minister has included the concept of housing in the Bill and surely it is sensible that other necessary and desirable aims also should be included. It is a matter of laying down guidelines in the Bill, and we believe that it is up to the Government in implementing the provisions to advance the intentions of the Parliament. I commend the amendments to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 206.

Division No. 44.]
AYES
[6.00 p.m.


Aitken, Jonathan
Bulmer, Esmond
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Burden, F. A.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Banks, Robert
Carlisle, Mark
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Beith, A. J.
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Durant, Tony


Bell, Ronald
Churchill, W. S.
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Benyon, W.
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Elliott, Sir William


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Cockcroft, John
Eyre, Reginald


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Brittan, Leon
Cope, John
Farr, John


Brotherton, Michael
Corrie, John
Fell, Anthony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Costain, A. P.
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Crawford, Douglas
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Budgen, Nick
Crowder, F. P.
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)




Fookes, Miss Janet
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
MacCormick, Iain
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fox, Marcus
McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Colin


Freud, Clement
Macfarlane, Neil
Shersby, Michael


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
MacGregor, John
Silvester, Fred


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sims, Roger


Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Goodhew, Victor
Madel, David
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Gray, Hamish
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spence, John


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mates, Michael
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Grist, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Grylls, Michael
Mayhew, Patrick
Sproat, Iain


Hall, Sir John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stainton, Keith


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Peter
Stanley, John


Hannam, John
Moate, Roger
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Monro, Hector
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Hawkins, Paul
Montgomery, Fergus
Stokes, John


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hooson, Emlyn
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Hunt, John
Neubert, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Hurd, Douglas
Onslow, Cranley
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


James, David
Pardoe, John
Townsend, Cyril D.


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Parkinson, Cecil
Trotter, Neville


Jessel, Toby
Pattie, Geoffrey
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Jopling, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Viggers, Peter


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Kershaw, Anthony
Rathbone, Tim
Warren, Kenneth


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Weatherill, Bernard


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Reid, George
Welsh, Andrew


Knight, Mrs Jill
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Wiggin, Jerry


Lamont, Norman
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wigley, Dafydd


Lane, David
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)



Lawson, Nigel
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lloyd, Ian
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Mr. Douglas Henderson and


Loveridge, John
Sainsbury, Tim
Mr. George Thompson.


Luce, Richard
Scott, Nicholas





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Archer, Peter
Deakins, Eric
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Armstrong, Ernest
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hooley, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Delargy, Hugh
Horam, John


Atkinson, Norman
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dempsey, James
Huckfield, Les


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Bates, Alf
Dormand, J. D,
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Bean, R. E.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunn, James A.
Hunter, Adam


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dunnett, Jack
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Boardman, H.
Eadie, Alex
Janner, Greville


Booth, Albert
Edge, Geoff
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
John, Brynmor


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
English, Michael
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Buchan, Norman
Ennals, David
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Buchanan, Richard
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Evans, John (Newton)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Judd, Frank


Campbell, Ian
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Kaufman, Gerald


Cant, R. B.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kelley, Richard


Carmichael, Neil
Flannery, Martin
Kerr, Russell


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kinnock Neil


Cartwright, John
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lambie, David


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Ford, Ben
Lamborn, Harry


Cohen, Stanley
Freeson, Reginald
Lamond, James


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
George, Bruce
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Gilbert, Dr John
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Golding, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Gourlay, Harry
Lipton, Marcus


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Litterick, Tom


Cryer, Bob
Grant, John (Islington C)
Lomas, Kenneth


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Grocott, Bruce
Loyden, Eddie


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Dalyell, Tam
Hamling, William
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Davidson, Arthur
Harper, Joseph
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson







McElhone, Frank
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Swain, Thomas


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Price, William (Rugby)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Radice, Giles
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mackintosh, John P.
Richardson, Miss Jo
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Maclennan, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Tierney, Sydney


McNamara, Kevin
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tinn, James


Madden, Max
Roderick, Caerwyn
Tomlinson, John


Magee, Bryan
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Urwin, T. W.


Mahon, Simon
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Marks, Kenneth
Rooker, J. W.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Marquand, David
Roper, John
Ward, Michael


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Rose, Paul B.
Watkins, David


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Weetch, Ken


Mendelson, John
Rowlands, Ted
Weitzman, David


Millan, Bruce
Sandelson, Neville
Wellbeloved, James


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Selby, Harry
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Moonman, Eric
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
White, James (Pollok)


Murray, Ronald King
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Whitehead, Phillip


Newens, Stanley
Sillars, James
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Noble, Mike
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Ogden, Eric
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Small, William
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Orbach, Maurice
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Spearing, Nigel
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ovenden, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Woodall, Alec


Park, George
Stallard, A. W.
Woof, Robert


Parry, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)



Pavitt, Laurie
Stoddart, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Perry, Ernest
Stott, Roger
Mr. James Hamilton and


Prescott, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Mr. Donald Coleman.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Grimond: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 20, at end insert
'but such an order shall not be made in respect of land already being used for oil-related purposes'.
I accept that the amendment will probably need redrafting and possibly placing in a different part of the Bill, but the point is clear and it is one that was not touched on in Committee. My arguments will show again that the Bill is too late, too vague, and possibly, at this stage, unnecessary. Several rig and platform building sites have already been agreed and work is in progress. This may be true also of other forms of oil-related development. There may be a case for delaying oil exploitation; there is certainly a case for expediting it and an even stronger one for controlling it, but there is no case at all for causing confusion.
If an undertaking such as rig or platform building has already started and an agreement has been made by the contractors and the landlord, do the Government intend to apply these provisions? To do so will cause confusion. If I can be given a clear assurance that the Government do not intend to apply the Bill to such cases I should be three-quarters convinced that the amendment is unnecessary. One of the most prominent builders has said that the Bill will cause considerable

confusion and anxiety if applied in such cases.
A connected question is the designation of sea areas, because rigs have to be towed out to be completed. One subsection allows the Secretary of State to revoke a licence. He does not have to give any reason, or pay any compensation. It has been represented to me that this also causes rig builders anxiety. Do the Government intend to apply this procedure to the sites that I have mentioned? If they do so and damage the landlord or the contractor, or both, will they pay compensation? There is no power to pay under the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Gray: I support the amendment. This is an unfortunate Bill. The Government have been overtaken by circumstances. They went to a great deal of trouble on Second Reading and in Committee to point out that the Bill did not interfere with normal planning procedures. We wanted to know, in that case, what its purpose was. It would not speed up the acquisiiton of sites, so we felt that it was irrelevant. The Government have recently given further permissions for platform building yards and it appears to many of us that when they all become functional the critical need for new yards will largely have been met. Without the amendment, what is the Bill's purpose? It can have only one purpose—the nationalisation of the sites and the companies operating there.
6.15 p.m.
This is surely part of a pattern. First, one nationalises and acquires a site, and then it is only a short step to full nationalisation—

Mr. John Smith: Oh, no.

Mr. Gray: The Minister may not accept this—

Mr. Smith: It is ridiculous.

Mr. Gray: It is far from ridiculous. Let the hon. Gentleman consider the activities of his right hon. Friend, that technological whizz-kid, the Secretary of State for Industry. Let him consider what would happen if he were let loose among these companies.
If the Government do not accept the amendment they will have shown that they have other ideas in mind. When companies in oil-related industries have made their investment and are contributing to oil exploration, they are surely entitled to an assurance that the land on which they operate will not come into the Government's grasp. This is a reasonable amendment, and I hope that it will be accepted.

Mr. John Corrie: I too, support the amendment, particularly in regard to the Hunterston situation, where a buyer and seller are willing to go as far as platform sites but the Government still intend to take over the area. Will the Minister clarify the situation? Will the process be held up until the area is taken over by the Government, or will those sites be allowed to go ahead under private development? Would not the amendment cover that situation?

Mr. Skeet: There is a presumption in a Bill of this kind that land will be acquired only when it is not otherwise available. I should therefore have thought that the Government would be ready to accept the amendment. Why have legislation to acquire land which is already being used for oil-related purposes?
I agree that the Government have already missed the bus. Five sites are already available and they have given notice of other sites which are marked out for acquisition at Campbeltown, Portavadie, Loch Fyne and Hunterston. As my hon. Friend has said, at Hunterston there is a willing buyer and a willing

seller. Why use this special procedure—this hard fist—of special powers to acquire land?
I hope that the Minister will say that the power will not be used. What distresses me about this procedure, is the exceptional nature of these powers. Schedule 1 contains a provision to which we cannot refer too often, that, on account of representations which are being made,
the Secretary of State shall not be obliged to cause any inquiry to be held or afford to any person an opportunity of being heard.
That is an example of modern democracy.
This will be debated later, but I fear that this procedure will be extended beyond cases in which there is a requirement for additional land to those where there is no requirement because land is already being used for oil-related purposes. Perhaps this extraordinary provision is not so surprising, since it appeared in the Land Commission Act several years ago. Fortunately, when we form a Government we shall be in a position to repeal this provision.
I have two further anxieties. I think that the Government are in some difficulty when they do not define the term "exploitation" in subsection (1). Indeed, it appears again in subsection (2)(a). They are getting themselves deeper and deeper into difficulties. What is meant by "exploitation"? A problem arises, because related to it is the use which will be made of the special procedure under Clause 5. I hope that the Minister of State will say precisely when this procedure will be used and what is an emergency. Does he say that in any conditions, because he sees fit that there should be an emergency, this procedure will be used, or will it be used only on rare occasions? If the procedure will be used only on rare occasions, he can accept the amendment.
My other grave anxiety is that the Minister is simply acquiring bits of land throughout Scotland which are required for platform building and other purposes, which the Government will put aside and then hand over to the British National Oil Corporation under the major Bill to be introduced later in the year. This is obviously a policy of nationalisation by stealth. I think that the Opposition should be decidedly against it.

Mr. William Small: I hope that the amendment


will be resisted. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) suggested that the Government's proposal was for nationalisation by stealth. We all understand straightforward nationalisation. Nationalisation Bills contain the word "nationalisation" in their Titles.
When the Opposition talk about nationalisation by stealth, they should remember their legislation on housing finance, which should have read "nationalisation of rents", which took away the discretion of local authorities, and they should compare that with the present Government's legislation on housing, which hands back control to the local authorities.
There is nothing hidden in the word "exploitation". The word is unique. Everyone understands its meaning.

Mr. Millan: In considering this amendment a number of extraneous matters have been brought in which, for the purposes of making progress with business, I propose to deal with briefly.
We shall not, under this clause, amended or unamended, nationalise the production platform companies, nor could we do that. The clause has nothing to do with the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) that, somehow or other, everything will be handed over to the BNOC. It has nothing to do with the sea designation orders mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).
I remind the House what the clause does—because the amendment is related only to the expedited acquisition order procedure. It would not prevent any of the so-called undesirable things happening by means of a compulsory procedure under the normal compulsory purchase procedures which are provided for elsewhere in the Bill. We are dealing only with the question of the expedited acquisition order.
If all these tremendous nefarious steps can be taken by the Government under this clause it seems slightly odd that we should be dealing with it under an amendment which deals only with the expedited acquisition order. This is what we have said generally about the public ownership of sites. I said on Second Reading and in Committee that in cases where a site was being operated satisfactorily

there would be no intention on the part of the Government to interfere in its operation. I gave specific assurances, for example, about Sullom Voe, which I am glad to say the county convener of Shetland has acknowledged as meeting the points put to me by the Shetland County Council. There is no question of interfering in situations where the work is proceeding satisfactorily.

Mr. Grimond: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assurance. Although I appreciate and acknowledge what was said about Shetland and the rig-building sites, it was not only Shetland that I had in mind.

Mr. Millan: There are no rig-building sites involved, with the exception of Marathon, at Clydebank. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about production sites and not rig-building sites. Apart from Marathon, there are none in Scotland, which is a matter of considerable regret to me, since that unfortunate situation arises from the neglect by the previous Government in the important area of semi-submersible rig building. I do not want to detract in any way from what I said about Sullom Voe, about which I have given categorical assurances which have been accepted.
In the normal course of events, when one is dealing with production platform sites, the same principle will apply—that so long as a situation is proceeding satisfactorily the Government will not intervene. However, situations may occur later at a particular site when, for the full exploitation of that site and for the maintenance of employment in the local community which has been built up because of the use of the site in the past, it will be necessary for the Government, for these and perhaps other reasons, to take the site into public ownership. At that time a question of urgency may be involved, and it may be very much in the interests of the local community that the site should be taken over and properly exploited, so that its full economic benefit can be obtained, both in the national interest and in the interests of the local community. It is in circumstances such as those that the powers we wish to have under the Bill will be necessary.

Mr. Gray: Will the Minister say a little more about the way in which he sees


this situation developing? He has mentioned a situation where matters are going all right. Who is to determine whether a company is being run properly? How will the Minister decide?

Mr. Millan: One of the tests obviously ought to be whether the site is being used for full activity or, indeed, for any activity. One of the difficulties which have been impressed upon us by hon. Members on both sides of the House has been the need to ensure that once a site has been obtained and is in use there should be a long-term and continuous use for it. That may not be happening and it may be very much in the public and national interest and in the interest of the local community that it should happen. To change the use of the site, the Government's powers are essential. It is because we believe that the long-term flexibility which this power gives us may need to be used that we cannot accept the amendment.
I wish to repeat the point concerning the acquisition generally—that one is concerned here not just with the short-term problem of acquiring sites on time but also with the long-term development and eventual reinstatement of the site. Of course public ownership gives a protection to the local community in terms of reinstatement or conversion to an alternative use which cannot be obtained under private ownership, where the site is owned by the developer. The impression is given by the Opposition that the powers we are taking in this respect are somehow resented by the local communities. Nothing could be further from the truth. The local authorities concerned in this operation, and the local communities, want the Government to acquire these powers because they believe that they will afford protection for them, particularly when taken in conjunction with the specific obligations that will be placed on the Secretary of State once a site has been publicly owned.

Mr. Skeet: Surely the restoration of land is entirely different from special acquisition. Special acquisition will be used only for very brief periods. After all, if there are 10 sites, they will be required for a number of years ahead. Therefore why is the Minister not prepared to accept the amendment?

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Millan: For reasons which I have explained already. In a given situation, there might be a good deal of urgency, from the point of view both of the local community and of the Government. In certain circumstances, if delay occurred the original solution might no longer be available. That would affect the immediate situation and also the longer-term problem of reinstatement.
It is flying in the face of the facts to suggest that the Bill is overtaken by events, bearing in mind that the Government announced last week that the three new sites at Portavadie, Campbeltown and Hunterston will be taken into public ownership.
I was asked to say a brief word about Hunterston. I do not intend to add anything to what I said last week when the decision was announced that the site would be taken into public ownership. I visited it last week and saw some of the problems on the ground. I think that the case for public ownership is overwhelming and possibly stronger than that in respect of any other site in Scotland. A large number of interests have to be reconciled at Hunterston, and the only effective way of doing that is for the Government to take the site into public ownership, which is what we intend to do.
There have been reports that our intention in this respect is resented by the Hunterston Development Company to an extent which may prejudice any development that we would want to see on the site in the immediate future. That is not my information from the company itself. I think that some of these statements have been taken rather out of context. I do not anticipate any substantial difficulty at Hunterston. In any event, by having the power in the Bill and by having the power to use the expedited procedure, we can achieve at Hunterston what is very much wanted by people in Scotland generally, which is as rapid a development as possible, not just in the short term but consistent with the longer-term requirements. In the Hunterston case, I feel that public ownership is the only answer, and I repeat the assurance which I gave last week that there will be no avoidable delay in its development. We are doing everything possible to see that the site is developed rapidly.
For all those reasons, I cannot recommend the House to accept the amendment. In the event, it may be that this provision for expedited acquisition rather than for compulsory or voluntary acquisition under the normal procedures will never have to be used, but, given the context in which the Bill is prepared and the powers that it contains, it would not be right to deny this additional power to the Government. It would not be exercised simply in the national interest, because it could be very important for the local communities involved.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We have had an interesting debate on this amendment, because it has resulted in our obtaining from the Government information about some of their intentions in relation to the application of the Bill, although I am left in some confusion about the precise way in which the Government intend to apply the expedited order procedure.
The Government have always made it plain that in most circumstances they believe that these sites should be acquired, yet I had the feeling that in certain circumstances, if all was going well in the Government's judgment, they might not decide to acquire compulsorily. That means that the Government will not do so in every case. But that puts the Government in a very powerful position. Who is to decide whether a site should be taken into public ownership? The hon. Gentleman justified it in certain circumstances. He said that a site should be acquired if it was not being fully utilised, where there were difficulties about reinstatement, and so on.
I question the whole outlook of the Government. I question it directly in relation to Hunterston, which provides perhaps the best practical example. The hon. Gentleman said that he thought that the development company at Hunterston would not be too much opposed to the Government's proposal. My information is to the contrary. The development company has every intention of resisting any attempt to nationalise the facilities at Hunterston.

Mr. Millan: Let us be quite clear about this. I did not say that the company was quite willing to acquiesce in any nationalisation proposals. It has made it clear that it does not approve of the principle

of nationalisation. However, it has said that it will not allow that to obstruct development of the site. That is the view which has been expressed to me, although there have been certain indications to the contrary in the Press. Regardless of the principle of nationalisation, no one will wish to encourage the Hunterston Development Company in any action which might obstruct development of the site.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No more than I hope the Government will do anything to obstruct development. The company takes a national viewpoint and will not do anything to obstruct it. But, just because the Government hold the threat of nationalisation over its head, I do not think that the company should be blackmailed into withdrawing its opposition to the Government's proposals and having its actions labelled as being against the national interest. That would be an unjustified use of Government power. If the Government held that threat over the company, it would be a form of blackmail. My discussions with the company revealed that it wants to develop the site in the best way possible. Unless the Government can justify their decision to take over the site and show that it is demonstrably in the public interest, the company has every right to stand up for its own position. The very suggestion that this may not be the situation makes me even more glad that we have written into the Bill the need for the affirmative resolution procedure, so that the House can put the Government's proposals to the test.
Taking the example of Hunterston, would it necessarily be in the public interest to acquire the site? Considering the present position, which is precisely covered by the amendment, agreements have been entered into between the owners of the site and the potential builders of platforms. In one case it is proposed to build a platform which is on the Government's approved list. The company has not yet got an order, but the lease is already drawn up between the development company and the construction company.
In these circumstances, when all the negotiations between the development company and the construction company are at such an advanced stage, I ask what


purpose will be served by taking this step of bringing it into public ownership.
The second point I want to make in relation to Hunterston is that I do not see that all the arguments about reinstatement necessarily apply, because Hunterston is already designated an industrial site, which, because of the interest of the British Steel Corporation, will obviously be developed in the future as an industrial site. So it is pre-eminently a site where there will be continuity of industrial activity, unlike Loch Kishorn—which is in a crofting area—or Portavadie. Therefore, the argument of reinstatement used by the hon. Gentleman as a reason for taking the site into public ownership does not necessarily apply.
The third point in relation to Hunterston, which I believe calls into question the whole of the hon. Gentleman's and the Government's philosophy and policy in relation to this is that I understand there is an agreement between the Hunterston Development Company and the British Steel Corporation that once platform construction is completed the corporation can exercise the option it has on the site at Hunterston. So we see that already, at this stage, under the agreement between the development company and the Steel Corporation, that site will revert to industrial use by the corporpation.
In these circumstances, therefore, I ask what purpose will be served by taking that site into public ownership. This underlines the point made by the right hon. Gentleman in moving the amendment, on the question of the purpose that will be served by the Government's provision in this Bill in relation to sites where development is already to take place.
To take this one stage further—as I understand it the delays that are taking place in relation to Hunterston are connected not with the question of who owns the site and will develop it but with the question of planning permission. That is the only thing holding matters up. As I understand it, the Government have approved one part of the site, at the south end, for development for building these production platforms, but they have not approved the site at the north end. This may hold up development for a particular

reason, but I use this as an example because it shows that it is not the company but the Government that are holding up development.
In order to justify the amount of reclamation that is necesary the company wishes to develop two sites at Hunterston. That would be commercially economic and would justify the tremendous expenditure needed for reclamation. The one thing that makes the company hesitate is the fact that the Government have given outline planning approval, first, for the reclamation necessary before work starts and, secondly, in relation to only one site. That makes the company hesitant, because, before starting reclamation, they want permission to develop both sites. Therefore, if there is going to be a holdup at Hunterston it will not be through any unwillingness on the part of those who own the site to develop it for the purpose of building a production platform but because of the Government's failure to issue outline planning permission for the second site, which would justify the very expensive work of reclamation needed.
I apologise for going into a certain amount of detail on this matter of Hunterston but I believe that it demonstrates quite clearly that the blanket powers which the Government are taking do not necessarily apply and are not necessary—full stop—so far as many of these developments are concerned, and this is particularly so in relation to Hunterston, the one site which the Government have made it quite clear they intend to take over.
For these reasons, therefore, the powers the Government are taking are not necessary on sites such as Hunterston, where the development is going to take place anyway and the safeguards are going to be there anyway. I believe they are using these powers for purposes which go beyond what we think is necessary. Therefore I recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: May I say a word in reply? I thank the Minister for his courteous answer to the points I made, but he will not be surprised if I say that I am rather unsatisfied. I fully agree that there may well be a case for taking


land into public ownership for the proper development and planning of oil-related industries. That is particularly so because the previous Government took no proper powers to exercise control. However, the whole point is to take over the land before the development starts. Here we have a situation—or may have a situation—in which the development has been through the planning procedures, everybody is agreed, the agreement has been drawn up, and then the Government step in. That does not make sense. We feel that the minimum necessary powers should be taken—not the maximum.
The Minister went on to argue that it might be necessary, in the public interest and to achieve full exploitation, to take the site into public ownership. I do not think that often happens. I cannot see any Government allowing expensive machinery and sites to stand idle, but if that does happen there are normal procedures for taking it into public ownership. What we are talking about is whether other Governments should be able to use the expediting machinery in such a case. I confess that I do not think there is a case for writing this into the Bill. All the Minister's arguments—I give him full credit for them—really apply to a situation before development has taken place, where there is a case for taking land into public ownership or a case in which it is necessary to go through the normal procedures for compulsory purchase for some reason which must be explained to the House at the time.
I therefore advise hon. Members to support the amendment.

Mr. Millan: First, of course, it is the Government's intention to take sites over before development takes place. We announced that last week, in relation to Portavadie, Campbeltown and Hunterston.
Secondly, the amendment would not affect Hunterston in any way. Since it refers to land already used for oil-related purposes, Hunterston was all we heard

about from the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), but it is completely irrelevant to relate Hunterston to the amendment.

I find it extraordinary that an Opposition speaker can talk about Hunterston and planning delays there without blushing, considering the long history of the previous Government's procrastination and failure to take any decisions in that situation. We have in fact taken far more important decisions about Hunterston in the past few months than the previous Government took in an equivalent number of years. I really have nothing more to add so far as the Hunterston situation is concerned, except that I wanted to put it on record that the site would be taken into public ownership for the reasons I outlined.

It seemed to me, listening to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns, that the previous Government's legislation seemed to be directed specifically towards Drumbuie and nowhere else. In other words, the previous Government's Bill would have been directed to taking over inalienable National Trust land but not land from the Hunterston Development Company. I must say that that is a bizarre kind of policy.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Our proposed legislation was related to those areas where there were problems. The trouble with the present Government's legislation is that it is blanket legislation to cover areas whether there is a problem or not. For that reason the policy of the Government is completely plain—it is obviously nationalisation and Socialism for the sake of nationalisation and Socialism.

Mr. Millan: The problem in Drumbuie was that there was a public inquiry going on and his Government did not want all the facts of the situation to be explored because they were frightened there might be an adverse report, which is what in fact happened.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 202.

Division No. 45.]
AYES
[6.50 p.m.


Aitken, Jonathan
Benyon, W.
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Biggs-Davison, John
Brittan, Leon


Bell, Ronald
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Brotherton, Michael


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)




Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Budgen, Nick
Hunt, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hurd, Douglas
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Burden, F. A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rathbone, Tim


Carlisle, Mark
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
James, David
Reid, George


Churchill, W. S.
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Jessel, Toby
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Jopling Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Cockcroft, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Kershaw, Anthony
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cope, John
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Corrie, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Scott, Nicholas


Costain, A. P.
Knight, Mrs Jill
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Crawford, Douglas
Lamont, Norman
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Crowder, F. P.
Lane, David
Shepherd, Colin


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lawrence, Ivan
Shersby, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawson, Nigel
Silvester, Fred


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sims, Roger


Durant, Tony
Lloyd, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Loveridge, John
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Luce, Richard
Spence, John


Elliott, Sir William
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
MacCormick, Iain
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Eyre, Reginald
McCrindle, Robert
Stainton, Keith


Fairgrieve, Russell
Macfarlane, Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


Farr, John
MacGregor, John
Stanley, John


Fell, Anthony
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stokes, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Madel, David
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mates, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Fox, Marcus
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Freud, Clement
Mayhew, Patrick
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Thompson, George


Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Peter
Townsend, Cyril D.


Goodhew, Victor
Moate, Roger
Trotter, Neville


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Molyneaux, James
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Gray, Hamish
Monro, Hector
Viggers, Peter


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Montgomery, Fergus
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Grist, Ian
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Warren, Kenneth


Hall, Sir John
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Weatherill, Bernard


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Neave, Airey
Welsh, Andrew


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nelson, Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Onslow, Cranley
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hawkins, Paul
Page, Rt Hon R, Graham (Crosby)



Hayhoe, Barney
Page, John (Harrow West)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Henderson, Douglas
Pardoe, John
Mr. David Steel and


Hooson, Emlyn
Parkinson, Cecil
Mr. A. J. Beith.




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Cohen, Stanley
English, Michael


Archer, Peter
Coleman, Donald
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Armstrong, Ernest
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Evans, John (Newton)


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Atkinson, Norman
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Faulds, Andrew


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Crosland, Rt. Hon Anthony
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bates, Alf
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)


Bean, R. E.
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Flannery, Martin


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dalyell, Tam
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bidwell, Sydney
Davidson, Arthur
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Ford, Ben


Boardman, H.
Deakins, Eric
Freeson, Reginald


Booth, Albert
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
George, Bruce


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Delargy, Hugh
Gilbert, Dr John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Golding, John


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Dempsey, James
Gourlay, Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Doig, Peter
Grant, John (Islington C)


Buchan, Norman
Dormand, J. D.
Grocott, Bruce


Buchanan, Richard
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hamling, William


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dunn, James A.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Campbell, Ian
Dunnett, Jack
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cant, R. B.
Eadie, Alex
Hooley, Frank


Carmichael, Neil
Edge, Geoff
Horam, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)


Cartwright, John
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Huckfield, Les


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)







Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mahon, Simon
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Marks, Kenneth
Small, William


Hunter, Adam
Marquand, David
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Spearing, Nigel


Janner, Greville
Meacher, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Mendelson, John
Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)


John, Brynmor
Millan, Bruce
Stoddart, David


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Stott, Roger


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Moonman, Eric
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Murray, Ronald King
Swain, Thomas


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Newens, Stanley
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Noble, Mike
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Judd, Frank
Ogden, Eric
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Kaufman, Gerald
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Kelley, Richard
Orbach, Maurice
Tierney, Sydney


Kerr, Russell
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tinn, James


Kinnock Neil
Ovenden, John
Tomlinson, John


Lambie, David
Park, George
Urwin, T. W.


Lamborn, Harry
Parry, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Lamond, James
Pavitt, Laurie
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Perry, Ernest
Ward, Michael


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Prescott, John
Watkins, David


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Weitzman, David


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, William (Rugby)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Lipton, Marcus
Richardson, Miss Jo
White, James (Pollok)


Litterick, Tom
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitehead, Phillip


Lomas, Kenneth
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Loyden, Eddie
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wiliams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


McCartney, Hugh
Rooker, J. W.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McElhone, Frank
Roper, John
Woodall, Alec


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rose, Paul B.
Woof, Robert


Mackintosh, John P.
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)



Maclennan, Robert
Selby, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


McNamara, Kevin
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Mr. James Hamilton.


Madden, Max
Sillars, James



Magee, Bryan
Silverman, Julius

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 2, line 34, at end insert:
'(9) An expedited acquisition order shall not be made in respect of any land unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the land is required for a purpose—

(a) which is in accordance with planning permission in force at the making of the order, granted on an application made under Part III of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 or under any enactment replaced by that Part; or
(b) which is in accordance with such permission in force as aforesaid, granted by a general development order under section 21 of that Act or under any enactment replaced by that section; or
(c) which does not involve development for the purposes of that Act'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Clause 2

EXTINCTION OF RIGHTS AFFECTING LAND

7.0 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 36, at end insert:
'( ) An order under subsection (5) above may, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that it should do so, provide for the creation of

an alternative right of way for use as a replacement for any right of way which is extinguished by the order'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this amendment we may consider also the following amendments:
No. 33, in page 3, line 36, at end insert:
'An order under subsection (5) above may, if the Secretary of State is satisfied it should do so, provide for the creation of an alternative crofting or community right for use as a replacement for any such right which is extinguished by the order'.
No. 39, in Clause 20, page 12, line 31, at end insert:
 'crofting or community right' means any right of access to the foreshore, wayleave, right to draw, dam or receive water or grazing right or right to cut, stack and carry away peat".
No. 43, in page 3, line 36, at end insert:
'( ) Where a right of common grazing is affected by an order under subsection (5) above, the Secretary of State shall consult with the crofters commission and an order may provide for an alternative or replacement right of common grazing or for modification of an existing right'.

Mr. Smith: This amendment gives effect to an undertaking given by myself


in Committee when we accepted the spirit of an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) to provide that an order under subsection (5) which extinguishes a private right of way may, if the Secretary of State is satisfied, provide for an alternative right of way for use as a replacement. This was widely accepted in Committee.
I might now make such observations as will be for the assistance of this House on the other amendments grouped with Amendment No. 3. Generally, they relate to the position of crofting rights of common grazing and other possible crofting rights, and seek to provide alternative rights of grazing, in the case of an amendment from the official Opposition, and to other matters, in the case of amendments put down in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee, East.
It might save argument if I point out to hon. Members the way in which Clause 5 is framed. It is that the Secretary of State may by order extinguish any public rights. It does not apply to private rights. I am advised that crofting rights are not public rights since, for example, members of the public cannot graze their sheep on croftings. There is an arrangement between landlord and tenant and this constitutes a private interest in land and therefore could not be extinguished by an order made by the Secretary of State under Clause 5.
But if land over which rights were exercised were compulsorily acquired by the Secretary of State, whether by normal procedure or by expedited acquisition order, compensation would be payable to the crofters under the Land Compensation Act for the acquisition of their interests.
That explanation might remove some of the fears which were obviously behind some of the amendments. If it does not apply if they are not a public right and are not caught by Clause 5, hon. Members need not continue the concern expressed in the amendments.

Mr. Gray: When we dealt with the Bill in Committee I spoke in connection with a similar amendment. At that time I dealt with public rights, private rights and community rights. While I welcome the amendment which the Government have tabled, and am reassured by what

the Minister said—reassured not only by his speaking in his capacity as an Under-Secretary but in his professional capacity also—I would remind him that in relation to crofting tenure the relationship between tenant and landlord is a private right and that there also enters into this matter a community right. This is something about which many of us on this side have had great fears because sometimes rights develop and are not very clearly defined for, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, crofting tenure is different from any other kind of tenure, and a considerable number of anomalies exist therein.
I should like an assurance from the Minister—and I know that it may be difficult for him to give me one at this stage—that where these community rights are interfered with, replacement will take place. This may sound a difficult thing to ask, but it may not be just a case of a footpath, or the right to use a footpath, being taken away. It may affect the full rights of a community, included in common grazings, which may affect a great many tenants in a crofting community. These problems have worried us all for some time.
The Minister will notice that in our amendment we ask that the Crofters Commission be brought into this matter. The Secretary of State appoints the commissioners, and here is a body in whom he can vest his trust in this matter.
Amendment No. 33, in the name of hon. Members of the Scottish National Party, provides for the creation of an alternative crofting or community right for use as a replacement for any such right as is extinguished by order, and I can quite accept that.
Our amendment in the name of the official Opposition, under which we want the Crofters Commission consulted in such matters, is of real value. That is emphasised by the other amendment which shows the various rights of crofting communities which could be interfered with. Hon. Members must realise that we want particular attention paid to existing rights enjoyed by crofting communities because we are most anxious that these shall not be interfered with and that, if they are, some reasonable alternative shall be provided for these people.

Mr. Grimond: The Government are to be congratulated on this amendment, fulfilling a pledge given in Committee. I want to state my opinion on this question of crofting rights, which are extremely important. I cannot now go through all of them fully, but they include peat cutting, access to peat and access to foreshore, and I would mention particularly the udal rights of Orkney and Shetland. In many parts of my constituency it is important for sheep to find seaweed and shelter as well as for fishermen, lobster men and others to reach the foreshore.
I wish to make only one suggestion to the Government. I wonder whether when the Bill reaches another place they will look at the possibility of suspending these rights. Is it necessary to extinguish such things as rights of way? Cannot they be suspended and, so to speak, brought back if and when a site is no longer needed?

Mr. Donald Stewart: Amendments Nos. 33 and 39 have already been covered to some extent by the Minister. I join those who have already congratulated the Government on putting down Amendment No. 3, which helps the situation considerably, but I do not see why Amendment No. 33 could not be accepted by the Government since the discretion of the Secretary of State is still maintained. As these rights have existed for countless generations, it would be a pity if they were abolished because of the extraction of oil resources which, everybody agrees, are comparatively finite.
In relation to Amendment No. 39, there are questions of access to the foreshore for boats and the question of collecting seaweed which offers a living for quite a number of people in my constituency. Since peat cutting may be the only source of fuel for people in some of these areas, because of their economy these rights should be maintained; and since the discretion of the Secretary of State is allowed for in the amendments, I hope that the Government will accept them.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Perhaps I may make a brief contribution on certain technical points referred to by the Minister. I agree from the legal point of view that there are differences between public rights and private rights,

and that, unfortunately, one of the difficulties is that crofting and community rights fall fairly and squarely almost between the two. Although in a sense they are private rights enjoyed collectively by a group of people, equally they are a public right, in the sense that communities depend upon them and they are shared in common. I appreciate the drafting difficulties that this may cause the Government, and it is difficult to suggest an amendment to cover the point. The definition of public rights of way referred to in Clause 2(5) may help the position. What is important—this has been stressed by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)—is that these crofting and community rights are vital to the areas concerned. We are dealing here with a new principle, and if it were technically possible for alternative rights or modifications to existing rights to be given the communities concerned would be very appreciative of that.

Mr. Hector Monro: Of course we welcome the amendment moved by the Minister in consequence of what he said in Committee at col. 304. I appreciate, too, that it is a fairly narrow amendment and we put forward many more arguments than the one concerning the rights of way. I am sure that the Minister will have refreshed his memory on what was said from col. 302 to col. 307 and on other questions which we considered to be particularly important in connection with what we thought could happen. We looked at all the aspects as well as the central one, which is that we want oil platforms developed as quickly as possible. I appreciate that the designation of sea areas comes under Clause 3, and the Minister has made a concession there. My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) will deal with that at the appropriate moment, but the question of designated sea areas may have something to do with rights of way being extinguished. It is right to consider the point in that context.
The amendment provides that the Secretary of State has the power to provide for the creation of new rights of way if the old ones are extinguished by order.


May we be told whose, and what advice the Secretary of State will accept? We had astonishing difficulty in getting him to agree, as he will later, even to approach the fishing authorities for advice on the designated sea areas. Will he be going to the local authorities, the crofters and other interested parties to decide whether or not a new right of way shall be provided? If that were put on the record it would at least give those people some confidence that their views would be respected in due course.
I hope that we shall not be unduly restrictive over the extinction of rights of way. We are not dealing with national defence or security; we are dealing only with the construction of oil platforms. It is wrong to sterilise a mile or, perhaps, half a mile of the foreshore, just because a platform is being built there. Provided the general public do not make a nuisance of themselves I do not see why they should not be allowed to continue to walk along the foreshore above or below the high water mark—which may be considered a right of way under the clause.
I know that the Minister wants to hurry along with the Bill, but we are equally keen to know what is to happen. Can he tell us, on the points we raised in Committee, what are his conclusions about wildfowlers? Where do these people stand under the clause? What is the position on recreational rights, which are equally important? The Minister must not try to shirk this, because it affects quite important areas of the most beautiful regions of Scotland. We do not want to see them sterilised unnecessarily. Will the Minister comment also on the right to go on to the beach for sailing, boating, swimming, or whatever the general public want to do? We must not underestimate the inconvenience that these platform sites will cause. That is why we want to know what the Minister's views are.
7.15 p.m.
The Minister made an important statement about common grazing rights, but even he will know that the sheep cannot read. How will they know the difference between private and public grazing rights? Will the Government make the site contractors liable for fencing off these areas? What will be the position in the future?

The Minister has explained his position in legal terms but we want something a little more expansive, so that the crofters will know that the Government have given detailed thought to the matter. We want spelt out in more detail precisely what the crofters rights will be. In Committee the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), in col. 303, asked specifically about seaweed and the cutting of peat, but we have not heard a squeak today from the Minister in reply to those points. Will he answer them in response to this evening's debate?
We are pleased that the Minister made a limited concession, but we want spelt out the extent to which the other interests I have mentioned will be affected. We want to know exactly the position of the people who for many years have had an interest in these areas. When they know that, they may be reassured, but they want to know.

Mr. John Smith: I thought that I had made the position perfectly clear when I moved the amendment. It was not a question of legal language—and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) can hear as well as anyone else. I said that these crofting rights which appear to be private rights because they are not open to the public could not be struck at by Clause 5 because the clause gives the Secretary of State power to extinguish a public right of way or a public right. That is not a matter of detailed legality. It is a simple proposition. On one or two other points I seem almost to have wasted my time trying to explain them, because I could not have made them any clearer. We could not under the powers of the Bill affect private rights, only public rights.
This will give a safeguard to the people concerned. I am advised that certain rights such as grazing rights are not public because it is not possible for just anyone to exercise them. Only the crofters may do that.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I appreciate what the Minister is saying, but does he not accept that where crofting land and the rights that go with it are taken over there may be a disadvantage to the communities concerned. I appreciate that the clause as drafted may not assist very much, but we are trying to emphasise once more to the Minister the importance of such rights. Maybe we have been approaching


this question from the wrong angle, but will the Minister take the whole matter back, work it out and see what can be done to provide alternative rights to the ones which may be affected to the impoverishment of the crofting communities?

Mr. Smith: We are discussing amendments to subsection (5) and not the general philosophy of the Bill or the general powers we have discussed elsewhere. The Bill proposes that the Secretary of State may take powers to extinguish certain public rights of way.
In response to the proposition that we should have these powers, certain other amendments have been put down. My reply to them is that as they affect private rights they are not struck at by the provision the Secretary of State wishes to have, so we do not need to concern ourselves with them now. In so far as there may be public rights of access to a foreshore, for example, they would presumably be regarded as rights of way, and the Secretary of State would have power to order an alternative right of way if he were satisfied that that would be necessary. It was perhaps one of the matters hon. Members had in mind that a public right of way could be struck at, but we have given powers in the amendment for the Secretary of State to provide an alternative.
There are legal difficulties about the interesting suggestion by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) of suspending rights, putting them on the shelf, as it were, till the situation has ended. Perhaps the best way is to give the Secretary of State the alternative powers we have given in the amendment, but the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion was ingenious.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) raised again the question of wild-fowling foreshore rights. I think that perhaps he has in mind access to the foreshore where wildfowling is practised on the foreshore. In so far as there is an access there, and it is a public right of way, that could be struck at by the Bill, but the Secretary of State has the power under the amendment to create an alternative right of way.
I hope that there will not be the possibility, as a result of the Bill, of sterilising large areas of the foreshore. That certainly would not happen under this part

of the Bill, because the power is just one given to the Secretary of State to vary a public right of way or other public rights. That is what we should concentrate our attention on.
My understanding is that where wild-fowling is practised on the foreshore it is no more than a customary right, which does not attach to the ownership of land. Wildfowl are distinct from game birds, which can be the subject of a private interest, such as the lease of grouse shooting, a definite interest which can be valued and compensated.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned access for other recreational pursuits, such as bathing and boating. We want to preserve as many such public rights as possible, which is why we have taken powers to provide a reasonable alternative where we have to interfere with a public right of way. That is the sensible way of dealing with the matter.
I hope that the House will accept the amendment, and agree that in the circumstances the other amendments are not necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

DESIGNATED SEA AREAS

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 2 after "authorities", insert
and such organisations representing the interests of fishermen".
The amendment comes out of the debate in Committee about consultation with fishermen before making a sea designation order. In Committee we wrote into the Bill a provision for consultation with local authorities, but there was still the feeling among hon. Members that fishing interests that might be affected by a sea designation order should be particularly protected by the inclusion of a statutory right of consultation.
Since the Committee stage we have had consultations with representatives of the Scottish Trawlers' Federation, representing the deep-sea fishermen, and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, representing the majority of the inshore fishermen. Both organisations accepted the Government's assurances that there would


be consultations before the orders were made, but they both wanted that intention given statutory expression. That is what is done by the amendments.
Which body was consulted would naturally depend on the location of the sea designation area. Consultation could be with one or both bodies I have mentioned, or with local inshore fishermen's associations, wherever that was necessary. For example, there is one in Orkney and one in Buckie. The important thing is that consultation is written into the Bill.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I welcome the amendment, with which the Government have met our arguments in Committee. There was still considerable anxiety among fishing interests, after the meeting with the Government, on the question whether that would be done. It has been done, and we are grateful.
Having had to deal with fishing as a member of the previous Government, I know—as does the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), as a result of his talks with the industry—that there is extreme anxiety throughout the industry about the whole of the oil development. All sections of the industry are justifiably sensitive about the way in which their livelihoods may be affected by the oil development, no matter how much wider benefit it may bring to Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Various pieces of machinery have been established to help with consultation. The more consultation we can have with fishermen on such matters, the more we shall put at rest the anxieties and concern that have been expressed.
It would be a great tragedy, not only to the fishing industry but to the proper development of the oil industry, if we saw the oil industry developing as a competitor with the traditional fishing industry. That would be a serious matter for good relations between different sections of the community in Scotland.
For that reason, I am grateful to the Minister for moving the amendment. The fishing associations with which I have been in contact must be grateful as well.
One other matter makes the question of consultation even more relevant. There is talk of extended fishing limits and, perhaps,

territorial waters. If territorial waters are extended, the area over which sea designation orders could be made will become much more extensive. Fishermen might then be even more affected. Therefore, the fact that consultation has been written into the Bill gives greater reassurance than may appear at first sight. I thank the Government for the amendment.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: I, too, thank the Minister for having noted the comments made in Committee. Since then I have spoken to the fishing interests in my constituency, which will be very pleased that the Minister has recognised and identified their special concern by moving the amendment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's words about consulting not just the central organisations but the local branches will become a reality. In some areas there may be a greater local awareness of the problems of those areas than the central organisation has.
The amendment is timely. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) that there should be this recognition of our arguments because of the anxieties in the industry over its problems of costs, quotas and limits. It is to be hoped that the consultation will represent a great step forward in the Government's attitude to the industry.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I add my thanks to the Government for having introduced the amendment. The Minister will know that after the meeting in Aberdeen there was real anger that fishing interests had not been consulted before the Bill was drafted. The amendment will go a long way towards showing that the Government take those interests fully into account.
The fishing industry is particularly sensitive at this time vis-à-vis the oil industry, and is suffering from other problems. With the likely extension of the three-mile limit to at least 12 miles, the application of the sea designation orders will increase. Unfortunately, as the Minister will know, the fishing industry believes that its experience of consultation with the Government has not been a happy one. Let us hope that from now on consultations will take place on a better footing.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Iain MacCormick: I stress the importance of such consultation regarding Loch Fyne. It is an area in which obstruction could easily arise to affect fishmen badly. I referred in Committee to the Loch Fyne herring. I am sure that the Minister will bear its fate in mind.

Mr. Millan: When I referred to local associations I did not mean local branches of the two main bodies that I mentioned. I was thinking of independent fishermen's associations which might represent the local members. I would be happy, of course, to talk about these matters with the local people most affected, but I would expect the main bodies to ensure that their local people were involved in the consultations and that they were consulted. What I was saying was meant to direct attention to the fishermen who are not members of the main bodies but who have their own local organisations. I do not want them to feel that they would be cut out by any consultation taking place with the main bodies, and which would be of interest to them. Orkney is one example.

Mr. Grimond: I do not mean to take up the time of the House on this matter but I would like to thank the Minister. I raised this point in Committee and I am grateful that he has responded to it.
Even though local branches of fishermen's organisations—for instance, in the herring fishing industry—are members of the main bodies it is my experience that the fishermen are organised locally. It is not quite the same as being a local branch of the NFU. They do not have constant contact with Brander and Cruickshank. If a person lives in Orkney he is far removed from the central organisation.
I know that the Scottish Office is full of good will, and particularly so at this time of night. I hope that it will carry on consultation in the months to come and that it will be in frequent contact with the organisations concerned. I hope that explanation will be given of what is happening and that the Scottish Office will listen to the views of the local associations. Their views vary much from port to port.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Grimond: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 8, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) No order under this section shall be made unless a draft of it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following amendments:
No. 34, in page 4, line 8, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) No statutory instrument containing an order under section 1 above shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(3) Any such statutory instrument shall proceed in Parliament as if its provisions would, apart from this Act, require to be enacted by a Public Bill which cannot be referred to a Select or other Committee of either House under Standing Orders of either House relating to private Bills '.
No. 44, in page 4, line 9, leave out from 'be' to end of line 10 and insert
'laid in draft in each House of Parliament and not take effect until such draft shall have been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament'.

Mr. Grimond: The amendment reiterates the demand for the affirmative procedure for the designation of sea areas. The amendment may be defective—indeed, I think it is—and I suspect that Amendment No. 34 makes an effort which I am not attempting to meet one of the points made by the Minister in Committee.
The purpose of the amendment is clear. The Minister gave an undertaking to consider this matter and if possible to let us have the affirmative procedure. He indicated that there were certain difficulties. I am sorry that he has not succeeded and I hope that he will try again. We have an affirmative procedure for land and the fishermen do not see why such a procedure should not be applied to the designation of sea areas.
I turn aside for one moment to say that it has been put to me by lawyers that the term "designated sea areas" is close to the term "designated area" which is used in the Continental Shelf Act. The lawyers hope that there will be no confusion.
The purpose of the amendment is to achieve an affirmative procedure for the designation of sea areas. I do not want to rehearse the full argument again. I


must stress that fishermen are concerned about the impact of oil. They are in danger of losing valuable grounds and they are also in danger of being severely hampered even in grounds which they still fish.
I can give two examples. The lobster fishermen in Orkney were warned that if they left their creels in a certain place they might suffer damage, the implication being that they should give up those areas altogether. It is impossible for such fishermen to know the exact nature of their rights. They cannot compete with large oil companies. They are not able to pursue their claims through the courts. The House must be careful to protect them. In another instance a man was asked to move his boat from a safe mooring to an unsafe one. His boat was blown upon the shore and damaged. He has no redress.
We are dealing with a lot of individual men who do not have strong organisations. They are faced with an entirely new situation. The large oil companies are interfering with their traditional living. It seems that as it stands the law of the sea is vague. It will be difficult to determine who is liable for any breaches that might occur or what compensation is payable. I feel strongly that the least we can do is to ensure, before an area is designated, with all that that entails, that this matter should be properly considered by the House. I beg the Government to look again at whatever difficulties there may be and, if they possibly can, to write the affirmative procedure into the clause.

Mr. MacCormick: I merely wish to underline what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has said. Perhaps fishermen stand to lose more than anyone else through the operation of the Bill. For that reason it is important that a great deal of time and trouble should be spent in determining whether a given sea designation order is required and in considering the position of the fishing industry, which is such an important industry in many parts of Scotland. It is clear that oil-related operations will take place for geographical reasons in areas that now contain fishing grounds. I believe that these are amendments which should commend themselves to the House.

Mr. Millan: I can say that I considered this matter, as I said I would, between Committee and Report. Amendment No. 34, if one wanted to do what is sought, would be the amendment to choose. I believe that it is properly drawn save for one slight error. That is not surprising as it is copied from a Government amendment.
On balance I do not believe that it would be desirable to write this procedure into the Bill. It is fair to say that the apprehensions about sea designation orders arise almost exclusively from the possible effect on fishermen. We are now dealing with an entirely different situation from the expedited acquisition order contained in Clause 1. We have written into the Bill that before a sea designation order is introduced there will be consultation not only with the local authorities, which is an improvement, but with the fishing interests.
When we take into account the procedure that a sea designation order has to go through as outlined in Schedule 3, when we take into account the licence conditions which can be imposed under Clauses 4 and 5, and when we consider that there will be regulations for protection and control in designated sea areas under Clause 6, which are subject to parliamentary procedure, I think that it is fair to say that we have provided a substantial amount of parliamentary control. A lot of complicated consultation is involved before such an order can be introduced and before it is made effective in terms of operations under the order taking place.
In those circumstances it would be unbalancing the situation to write a further provision into the Bill which would provide for an affirmative resolution procedure. It is a matter of balance and I cannot pretend that the arguments are all the one way. To some extent the degree to which we should be involved in these debates in the House, whether by negative or by affirmative procedure, will depend on how we decide to define the areas for a sea designation order. If we take Loch Fyne as an example, it would be possible to designate a large part of the loch under one order or it would be possible to do so in separate bits as the necessity arises. Before making a decision on that, we would want to go through the consultations with local authorities,


the fishing interests, and the rest, so that, instead of one order, one might have a series of orders, which would have implications for parliamentary time.
All these matters will be subject to local discussion. The parallel between sea designation orders and anything similar—as far as one can have anything analogous in other legislation—would point to the negative procedure and not to the affirmative procedure. Since we have written so many other safeguards into the Bill, I ask the House not to include this further safeguard, which would merely make the process too elaborate and would add very little in the way of positive additional protection to that which we are already affording in the Bill.

Mr. Henderson: We are glad that the hon. Gentleman will have such extensive consultations with interests outside the House, but would it not be in the best interests of the Bill if there were also consultations with Members of this House, in the terms which the amendment proposes, before a decision was taken? Consultation does not always imply agreement, and there may well be cases where there is disagreement by some of the interests consulted. In that case, the correct constitutional way for such disagreement to be aired, discussed and decided upon would surely be on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman is forgetting that the negative procedure will apply and that, under the new arrangements for the Statutory Instruments Committees, it is much easier now to get debates under the negative procedure than it used to be. The situation is by no means that parliamentary debate will be excluded. The Bill as it stands will simply mean that we shall not have a specific obligation, regardless of circumstances, to find time for an affirmative resolution.

Sir John Gilmour (Fife, East): While one is grateful for the consultations which the Minister is now providing, are we not up against a difficulty that if, under Clause 1, an area of land is acquired, a sea designation order is likely to follow, irrespective of whatever representations can be made? Once one has actually agreed to a certain piece of land being acquired and used, a sea designation

order is almost certain to have to be made in order to get the platform out to sea.

Mr. Millan: It depends—it does not necessarily follow.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: We appreciate the point made by the Minister of State, but we should also take into account the point put by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson), when he said that consultation does not necessarily imply agreement. There is obviously a difference between the expedited acquisition procedure and the sea designation orders, but it is just as important to those involved, the fishermen, that a sea designation order should be seen to have the full positive blessing of this House. The Minister may query the word "blessing", but certainly the agreement of the House should be seen to have been given in such cases.
Clearly, the affirmative procedure would be a protection for fishermen whose livelihood is as much affected by a sea designation order as a farmer's livelihood is affected when land acquisition is expedited on shore. We ask the Minister to consider the whole matter again very carefully because it is vital that Parliament should be seen to be involved in these very important decisions.

Mr. Millan: I can only repeat that Parliament is involved through the negative procedure. There is, perhaps, a tendency to devalue that procedure, so I shall give examples of where it applies. We can designate the site of a new town, for example, by an order subject to the negative procedure. Orders related to development area status are under the negative procedure. Orders made under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act, 1967, restricting fishing by licensed boats in specified sea areas and prohibiting the landing of fish caught in specified areas, are made under the negative procedure.
Thus, what we propose in the Bill is not unprecedented in matters of considerable substance. We have written into the Bill a tremendous number of safeguards and I cannot imagine that any Government, even if they wished to do so—we certainly would not come into that category—could hope to get away with anything under a sea designation order, given all the safeguards which the Bill


already contains. We consider that the Bill has enough safeguards without the additional protection proposed in the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 161, Noes 191.

Division No. 46.]
AYES
[7.45 p.m.


Aitken, Jonathan
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Parkinson, Cecil


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Bell, Ronald
Hannam, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Benyon, W.
Hawkins, Paul
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Biggs-Davison, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Rathbone, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Henderson, Douglas
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hooson, Emlyn
Reid, George


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Brittan, Leon
Hunt, John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Brotherton, Michael
Hurd, Douglas
Rifkind, Malcolm


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Budgen, Nick
James, David
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Bulmer, Esmond
Jessel, Toby
Scott, Nicholas


Burden. F. A.
Jopling Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Carlisle, Mark
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shepherd, Colin


Churchill, W. S.
Kershaw, Anthony
Shersby, Michael


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Silvester, Fred


Clark, William (Croydon S)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sims, Roger


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cockcroft, John
Lamont, Norman
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lane, David
Spence, John


Cope, John
Lawrence, Ivan
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Corrie, John
Lawson, Nigel
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Costain, A. P.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sproat, Iain


Crawford, Douglas
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Stainton, Keith


Crowder, F. P.
Lloyd, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Loveridge, John
Stanley, John


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Luce, Richard
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
MacCormick, Iain
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Macfarlane, Neil
Stokes, John


Durant, Tony
MacGregor, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Elliott, Sir William
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Tebbit, Norman


Emery, Peter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Mates, Michael
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Eyre, Reginald
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mayhew, Patrick
Thompson, George


Farr, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Trotter, Neville


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mills, Peter
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Fookes, Miss Janet
Moate, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Molyneaux, James
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fox, Marcus
Monro, Hector
Warren, Kenneth


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Montgomery, Fergus
Weatherill, Bernard


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Welsh, Andrew


Goodhart, Philip
Neave, Airey
Wiggin, Jerry


Goodhew, Victor
Nelson, Anthony
Wigley, Dafydd


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Neubert, Michael
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Gray, Hamish
Nott, John



Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Osborn, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grist, Ian
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. David Steel and


Hall, Sir John
Pardoe, John
Mr. Alan Beitb.




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen


Archer, Peter
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Armstrong, Ernest
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)


Atkinson, Norman
Buchan, Norman
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Buchanan, Richard
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Dalyell, Tam


Bates, Alf
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Davidson, Arthur


Bean, R. E.
Campbell, Ian
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cant, R. B.
Deakins, Eric


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Carmichael, Neil
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bldwell, Sydney
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dempsey, James


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cartwright, John
Doig, Peter


Boardman, H.
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Dormand, J. D.


Booth, Albert
Coleman, Donald
Douglas-Mann, Bruce




Dunn, James A.
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Russell
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Eadie, Alex
Kinnock Neil
Roderick, Caerwyn


Edge, Geoff
Lambie, David
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lamborn, Harry
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lamond, James
Rooker, J. W.


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Roper, John


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lee, John
Rose, Paul B.


Evans, John (Newton)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Rowlands, Ted


Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lipton, Marcus
Sillars, James


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Litterick, Tom
Silverman, Julius


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Lomas, Kenneth
Skinner, Dennis


Flannery, Martin
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Small, William


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Spearing, Nigel


Ford, Ben
McCartney, Hugh
Spriggs, Leslie


Freeson, Reginald
McElhone, Frank
Stallard, A. W.


George, Bruce
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)


Gilbert, Dr John
Mackintosh, John P.
Stoddart, David


Golding, John
Maclennan, Robert
Stott, Roger


Gourlay, Harry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Grant, John (Islington C)
McNamara, Kevin
Swain, Thomas


Grocott, Bruce
Madden, Max
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Magee, Bryan
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hamling, William
Mahon, Simon
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Harper Joseph
Marks, Kenneth
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marquand, David
Tierney, Sydney


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tinn, James


Hooley, Frank
Meacher, Michael
Tomlinson, John


Horam, John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)
Millan, Bruce
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Huckfield, Les
Miller, Dr M S. (E Kilbride)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Murray, Ronald King
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Newens, Stanley
Ward, Michael


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Noble, Mike
Watkins, David


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric
Weitzman, David


Hunter, Adam
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Orbach, Maurice
White, James (Pollok)


Janner Greville
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ovenden, John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Park, George
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


John, Brynmor
Parry, Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Perry, Ernest
Woodall, Alec


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Prescott, John
Woof, Robert


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)



Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, William (Rugby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Judd, Frank
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mr. James Hamilton and


Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. Laurie Pavitt.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 4

LICENCES IN RELATION TO OPERATIONS IN DESIGNATED SEA AREAS

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 29, after 'aforesaid', insert
'but subject to subsection (7) below'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following amendments:
No. 7, in page 4, line 45, at end insert:
'(7) This section shall not apply to the completion of relevant operations commenced by a harbour authority or pursuant to a licence granted by a harbour authority before the passing of this Act'.
No. 8, in Clause 5, page 5, line 9, after 'shall', insert:

'(except in the case of relevant operations commenced by a harbour authority or pursuant to a licence granted by a harbour authority before the passing of this Act)'.

Dr. Mabon: I apologise for not being able to take part in the proceedings on this Bill earlier because I have been in a Select Committee for most of the afternoon. I am glad that I was not provoked on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) to make a speech in support of this excellent Bill, which was the offspring of a reluctant Conservative Government and which has been continued by a not quite so reluctant Labour Government.
This is a very good Bill and these three amendments are meant to be helpful and constructive, as I have tried to be in this House over the past 19 years. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 go together. Amendment No. 8 is related to them but the


first two stand together, No. 6 being the paving amendment. Amendment No. 8 is of a similar character, but is in the nature of a probing amendment. I am not quite so determined about the purport of Amendment No. 8 as I am about Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. Clause 4 prohibits the carrying out of any relevant oil-related operations without a licence granted by the Secretary of State. Subsection (3) makes it clear that harbour authorities or persons licensed by them may continue to carry out works which are not oil-related.
I have been informed by the British Ports Association that some port authorities and licensees have already commenced oil-related works and feel that the Bill should not be given retrospective effect, because it may require those harbour authorities and their licensees to obtain licences from the Secretary of State in relation to those works, and because conditions could be imposed on such licences which would render the works already begun more expensive to complete.
The best example I can give—perhaps the Minister is aware of it—is the Forth Ports Authority, which, I understand, with the assistance of British Petroleum has already commenced an oil-related development at Hound Point in respect of which I understand about £5 million worth of work has already been done. The Minister may have no intention of affecting that position, but it appears that others may be placed in some difficulty. It is with the intention of being helpful that I have tabled Amendments Nos. 6 and 7.
Amendment No. 8 deals with the question of retrospection concerning the provisions of local enactments, byelaws or licences granted by public authorities. The British Ports Association feels that subsection (2) goes a little far and that licences granted by the Secretary of State should not supersede local enactments, byelaws and licences in so far as they have been implemented for oil-related operations commenced before the Bill. Amendment No. 8 deals with that point.
With four or six other hon. Members I have the privilege of being the parliamentary adviser—absolutely unpaid, I hasten to add—to the British Ports Association, and I am pleased to try to represent the association on these matters. It has always been a matter of great regret to me that

we did not succeed in 1970 in getting through the Bill to nationalise the ports. Had we done so many of these problems would have been solved. In the absence of nationalisation, I am trying to improve the Bill by these amendments.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: I understand that the purpose of the amendment is to try to avoid any retrospective effect in respect of the licences already granted to harbours. The example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) of the Forth Ports Authority and the work at Hound Point is unlikely to be covered by a sea designation order. The Government's intention is to make sea designation orders in relation to platforms and it is only in relation to platforms that this will arise.
It is important for the Government to try to get a uniform system of control and regulation of offshore construction operations. If the amendments were carried it would be difficult to do that, because certain things would be licensed under a set of conditions different from those that come later. There will be close co-operation between the Government and the harbour authorities and, even allowing for an element of retrospection, it is desirable to try to achieve a uniform policy.
I shall make sure that the matters raised by my hon. Friend are brought to the attention of the Government and borne in mind.

Dr. Mabon: May I have an assurance that if there is another estuary where this activity is being carried on it will be covered by the sea designation order? Will my hon. Friend also answer my arguments on Amendment No. 8?

Mr. Smith: I thought that I had given an assurance on that.

Dr. Mabon: I am not sure what assurance I received.

Mr. Smith: I think the confusion arises because I did not intend to give my hon. Friend a specific assurance. I said that I would take into account what he said. Does my hon. Friend want more than that?

Dr. Mabon: Yes, I do. If the British Ports Authority people read the report of our proceedings tomorrow they will be interested to see that my hon.


Friend and I got on so well, but they will not be pleased with the answers. I asked my hon. Friend to assure me that he will cover the point in the Bill by regulation. Am I wrong in thinking that he has given me that assurance?

Mr. Smith: I did not give that assurance, but I am sure my hon. Friend will draw the proceedings to the attention of the British Ports Association. The members of the association can then read it for themselves. I am advised that it is unlikely that there would be any sea designation order in the case of Hound Point, which is the example mentioned by my hon. Friend. Any fears he has on that score are unfounded. That is what I intended to cover.

Dr. Mabon: Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to say that that is true of every other circumstance of which he is aware? After all, I gave an example only—I did not give a list.

Mr. Smith: I cannot possibly give an assurance about things which my hon. Friend has not mentioned particularly. I do not know what he has in mind, and I cannot do anything about specific examples.
I can see the force of the argument in cases where licences have been granted to harbour authorities, but, on the other hand, the Government feel that they should take power to apply a uniform set of conditions. It is a matter of balance whether one takes one point of view or the other. I am afraid that I must resist the amendment and advise the House not to accept it. In doing so I realise the importance of my hon. Friend's point and I shall carefully consider it.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As Hound Point is in the West Lothian constituency, and as I visited it a month ago, I am interested to know whether the Government have had any representations, because I have not.

Mr. Smith: It would not occur to anyone to make a sea designation order there, as we have been talking only about platform construction sites. It would be surprising if the Firth of Forth was used for that purpose. I am glad that my hon. Friend raised the matter so that it could be clarifyied.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am glad that my hon. Friend has clarified the matter in his own mind, but will he think about other sites in other places? I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I was unaware that the Forth Ports Authority was not made aware of this problem. I am concerned that the authority may be involved in more expense. I take it from the Minister's reply that the authority will not be involved in more expense and that the Government will make sure that these matters are looked at carefully.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Minister said that it would be unlikely that a sea designation order would be made in that area, but is he convinced of that? In that area there is platform construction at Methill and, with techniques changing, the construction of some rigs on the shore part of Methill could be finished on the Firth of Forth. Is the situation so unlikely? I should be interested to know what the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) thinks about that.

Mr. Smith: I gave no assurance about expenses, and no assurance is intended to be conveyed about expenses. As this is a rather technical matter, my hon. Friend may agree to write to the Secretary of State and take up in detail the way in which it will be carried out in practice.
In reply to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), I am advised that there would be no intention to make a sea designation order for Hound Point. The main purpose of the orders is to regularise what happens when platforms are towed out for completion.

Dr. Mabon: I shall not press the amendment. May I ask leave to withdraw the amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may ask leave to withdraw the amendment, which will exhaust his right to speak on it.

Dr. Mabon: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

TERMS AND EFFECT, ETC. OF LICENCES UNDER S. 4

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 5, line 24, after 'a' insert public or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following amendments:
No. 45, in page 5, line 24, after 'private', insert 'or public'.
No. 36, in page 5, line 30, at end insert—
'( ) Where any public right of sea fishery is interfered with under the authority of subsection (3) above, the person to whom the licence has been granted shall be liable to pay a disturbance payment to the operator of any trawler, drifter or fishing boat, whether registered or not, who shall be as a result of a sea designation order made under section 3 of this Act indefinitely prohibited from or restricted in, fishing in or from and in setting nets or creels or pots in, or adjacent to, an area of water (the said area of water being an area in which or adjacent to which such operator of a trawler, drifter or fishing-boat has in the three years immediately preceding the occurrence of the relevant event habitually or regularly fished, or in or adjacent to which he has habitually or regularly set nets or creels or pots).
( ) The amount of the disturbance payment shall be equal to—

(i) the annual loss which such operator will sustain by reason of being so prohibited or restricted, multiplied by the multiplier ten, such annual loss being determined as that proportion of the nett average annual profit of such operator, in the three years immediately preceding the making of the sea designation order, as is arrived at by dividing the said nett annual average profit by the number of working days in a year, and multiplying the resulting quotient by the number of working days on which such operator fished, or set nets or creels or pots in, or adjacent to, the said area of water,
(ii) any redundancy payments which such operator may be required by law to pay to any employee whom he dismisses from his employment as a result of his being so prohibited or restricted, and not otherwise recoverable by such operator, and
(iii) that proportion of any debt secured over the trawler, drifter or fishing-boat or its gear, equipment and appurtenances operated by such operator as is arrived at by dividing the total of such debts by the same divisor, and multiplying the resultant quotient by the same multiplier, as are referred to in (i) above; and any question of disputed compensation under this subsection shall be referred to and determined by the Lands Tribunal for Scotland.


( ) For the purposes of this subsection—

(a) an operator of a trawler, drifter or fishing-boat shall be deemed to be any person, firm, company or corporation who own, charter, hire or lease a trawler, drifter or fishing-boat and carry on therewith the business of fishing;
(b) an area adjacent to the area of water referred to in a sea designation order shall be deemed to be any area of water in which if nets, creels or pots are set, such nets, creels or pots may, as a result of the action of all or any of the wind, tide, or marine currents, drift or be carried into the area of water covered by the sea designation order'.

Mr. Wilson: Amendment No. 35 is fairly innocuous, but it is related to Amendment No. 36. Here I again take up the cudgels on behalf of public and private rights, this time in relation to fishermen. It is clear from the Bill that those who hold private fishing rights—salmon and sea trout rights, and so on—will be compensated should those rights be interfered with. That principle has been accepted for some time, but dissatisfaction has been expressed in relation to those who fish in the sea, which is a public right of fishery, as the sea is open to all.
If a sea designation order is made, fishermen who have taken advantage of that right may find that their livelihood will be affected if part of the fishing banks or shell fishing areas that they have been accustomed to exploit have been interfered with.
The amendments are intended, first, to give a public right to those fishermen to qualify for compensation and, secondly, to endeavour to lay down a basis on which that compensation may be paid. This is entirely new territory, and I suppose that the first objection to it may be the difficulty of proof. I am informed by a mathematician who looked at this clause that it is capable of being expressed in the form of an equation, and I shall express it in that form later, if so required.
The matter works out mathematically but, speaking as a former lawyer, I know that one difficulty might lie in proving that a certain person had fished in a given area for a requisite period. However, I suggest that in the circumstances of areas likely to be designated as sea areas, it will be possible to do so. We are dealing with small communities in which fishermen well know who is inclined to fish where. Admittedly fishermen are


likely to have their own secret places, where they hope to land special catches, but generally in offshore fisheries it is known where somebody lays creels and where he fishes, because it involves inland waters.
Amendment No. 36 puts the onus on the developer to pay for the disruption caused by him as a result of his wish to have an area protected or designated for certain construction activities. I can see no objection to that, in principle. It is not a question of the State being called upon to pay sums out of the £40 million specified in the Bill. It is a reflection of the first part of the provision, which puts the burden on the person who interferes with the private right to pay compensation in regard to any resulting loss or damage suffered. The principle is the same, and there should be no difficulty over it.
The first leg of the calculation is to try to ascertain the amount of compensation or disturbance payment. It involves taking three years as the operating period, during which the net average annual profit can be worked out, and basing that on the number of days in the year when the fisherman concerned is likely to have exploited the fishing bank or area involved. The compensation is directly related to the time which is likely to have been spent by a fisherman in a certain area.
The second leg of the calculation endeavours to cover the fisherman, or the owner or operator of a trawler, drifter or fishing boat, against any additional expenses, such as redundancy payments, which may be incurred through dismissal from employment of somebody who formerly worked in a boat and whose services are to be dispensed with because of the slowing down of a fishing business through the operation of a sea designation order.
Lastly, we come to the proportion of any debts secured on a trawler or fishing boat or its gear. In these days somebody wishing to take over a fishing boat, or to buy one, or to have one built, faces substantial costs. I am informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson), who has specialised knowledge on this subject, that an 80-foot inshore fishing boat costs £300,000, or £3,000 to £4,000 per foot. Most people in envisaging such expenditure

would find it necessary to obtain a loan to cover the purchase and running of the boat. Therefore, if the amount of fishing is reduced the catch will be limited and in terms of capital cost the effect will be very serious. I hope that that aspect will be taken into account.
Since matters of this kind, involving compensation, are often disputed, we suggest that there should be the right of access to the Scottish Lands Tribunal. Thereafter it would be a matter of proof, to be defined by the assessors on the Lands Tribunal as to actual loss incurred by the fisherman. It will be for the tribunal to accept or reject evidence brought before it.
I feel that Amendment No. 36 should have particular appeal for Labour Members, in view of complaints made at the Labour Party conference about iniquitous payments made to holders of private salmon fisheries and payments made by hydro boards in past years. Surely there is a strong argument for compensation to be made to working fishermen when loss occurs, in exactly the same way as private fishing rights are compensated when fishing is carried out for pleasure rather than for profit.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: I wish to support Amendment No. 36 and the principle behind it. If the Government find that they are unable to write into the Bill provisions involving compensation for interference with public rights of fishing, I hope they will at least give the House an undertaking that they will look at the whole question in the context of oil activities.
I should like the Government to give a definition of "public rights of fishing" in certain areas such as Sullom Voe in Shetland or Scapa Flow in Orkney it is likely—whether areas are designated or otherwise—that there will be the gravest interference with fishing. There may even be a Bantry Bay situation, but certainly oil-related industries will gravely impair shore fishing, white fishing and, at certain times of the year, herring fishing.
It is fair to say that companies for whose benefit these areas have been turned over to oil should make some payment to fishermen who are affected by oil operations. The payment may be difficult to calculate and it will not be easy


for fishermen to prove their claims, but this is largely due to the fact that we have not given enough thought to these matters. I suggest that there should be an insurance scheme and, that, if that is not acceptable, some compensation should be made available to ordinary fishermen without too much complication being involved. If such a provision is not feasible, the Government at least should say that they are well seized of the situation and will take action in some other context.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We have had a very good debate on the subject of compensation, and it is apparent that hon. Members are trying to provide a vehicle by which fishermen can be assisted if their livelihood is affected by sea designation orders. The wider implications have been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). We have to consider these matters not merely in the context of sea designation orders but in terms of the upset and disturbance likely to result from the activities of the oil industry.
The House has discussed the complications involved in assessing a claim by a fisherman who may have lost his livelihood. There appears to be no precedent where a public right of this nature has been lost or interfered with and no precedent as to the actual amount of loss suffered and the amount of compensation paid. I appreciate the difficulties.
I have sympathy for the Minister if he puts forward arguments on those lines.
Indeed, I have considerable sympathy with the view put forward by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, namely, whether, in order to meet some of the worries about which I spoke earlier on fishing, which I will not repeat now, some kind of insurance scheme could be devised, funded in some way by the oil companies and those with direct interests, from which fishermen could benefit because of their loss of livelihood, for damage to gear, and so on. I suggest that that proposal might be pursued as an effective and realistic way of meeting the problem.
Another way might be to have a levy on those benefiting from a sea designation area. Out of the funds provided by those who pay the levy money could

be made available to those who could prove that their rights had been interfered with as a result of the designation of an area.
I hope that the Minister will not give us a final answer tonight. There may be practical difficulties of assessment in individual cases. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to look at the fishing industry and the oil industry generally to try to find some way of providing compensation for those who may be affected. I am sure that such an assurance would go a long way to allaying some of the anxieties which are felt and would lead to a greater amount of good will between the fishing industry and the oil industry. I have not spoken closely to the letter of the amendment, but I hope that the Minister will accept the spirit of it in that way.

Mr. Sproat: I should like to add to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). I support the principle behind the amendment that some form of compensation should be paid for loss of livelihood. Whether the scheme suggested by the hon. Member for for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is right or not, I think that he is to be congratulated on having worked it out in detail, because it shows that it is feasible. I do not know whether this is the right answer. However, I hope that the Minister will undertake to carry out the spirit of the amendment by convening a meeting as soon as possible, at which the fishing industry and the oil industry and the Government could be represented, to get both sides to put forward their ideas in an attempt to ascertain whether a way can be found for compensation to be made in a manner acceptable to all.

Mr. Millan: The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the hon. Members for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) have taken us into a rather wider area than that covered by the amendment. I refer to the effect on the fishing industry of the impact of the oil industry generally. I am not being critical. The problems are inter-related. Indeed, they demonstrate that even if we could find an acceptable scheme to deal with the problem relating to sea designation areas it is only part


of the much bigger problem of the impact of the oil industry generally on the fishing industry.
This matter is being examined by the fisheries and offshore oil consultative groups. The forum that we established in the summer of last year is available and is being used to discuss these general problems rather than the particular point of compensation for sea designation orders which is dealt with in this series of amendments.
The amendment raises the important point of principle whether a public right should be compensated at all. It is not normal to compensate public rights. If we made compensation available for the inshore fisherman in sea designation areas but not for the deep sea fisherman there would be an immediate anomaly. However, that should not necessarily prevent our looking at a more restrictive scheme. I am not persuaded that the point of principle should be set aside, because it would have implications elsewhere.
If the point of principle were set aside or conceded and an acceptable method were arrived at of working out the loss, the question of the way in which it should be done would not be the most difficult to answer. Therefore, in a sense, to say that it should be done by means of an insurance scheme or levy is putting the cart before the horse. These are devices for paying compensation after getting over the difficulties of principle and of working out an acceptable scheme. I do not dismiss them—they may be perfectly acceptable methods of proceeding—but I do not think that they affect the basic argument which, to give credit to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), is tackled head on in the amendment.
Can we work out an acceptable scheme? The hon. Member for Dundee, East has obviously put a lot of effort into this matter, presumably with advice from those in the industry who know some of the problems involved. However, I do not believe—I do not say this in any spirit of unnecessary criticism—the hon. Gentleman has produced an acceptable solution, even given that we could get the question of principle accepted.
One of the faults in the suggestions brought out in this series of amendments is that the hon. Gentleman has directed

his attention more to the profit that a fishing operator was making in a particular sea designation order area. Indeed, it is not only the profit that he was making in a particular area, because Amendment No. 36, perhaps inadvertently, brings into the calculation the profits for the whole of his operations, most of which might be outside the sea designation order area. That is perhaps inadvertent and could be put right.
What is not so easily put right is the calculation of the loss. This is a question not only of identifying the particular part of the profits relating to a fisherman's activities in the sea designation area—that could be difficult enough—but of calculating the actual loss. The loss is not necessarily the profit that he was making when he was able to fish in that area. It depends on a whole lot of factors, including whether there is a similarly acceptable alternative area available to him in which to fish and to transfer his interests. It would be feasible to prove that a fisherman was making a certain profit from a particular area which was now denied to him, but his actual loss might be nil because there was a similar or even better area available to him elsewhere.
Therefore, ingenious as the formula suggested in the amendment is, I do not think we get right to the heart of the matter, which is the annual loss as distinct from an annual loss being calculated on an arbitrary basis and being made equivalent to the actual profit that a fisherman was making from his activities generally.
8.30 p.m.
There are also intrinsic difficulties in relation to proof in the formula. If a formula provides that someone who had been involved in a particular activity in a particular area on so many days, even though that was only a minuscule part of his operations, should get compensation, that would be too generalised and would require considerable refinement. Thus the hon. Gentleman has not worked out a formula.
Even if one could accept the principle, which I am by no means convinced is possible, it would be indispensable to achieve fairness between one operator and another. It would not be right to have a formula which was right for one fisherman


but for another produced derisory compensation in terms of his loss and for a third was so generous as to be extravagant rather than just.
I am not criticising the formula simply on technical grounds but because any formula would have to apply fairly to a series of individual circumstances. I am not convinced that this formula does so. Nor have I been persuaded that it is easy or even possible to produce by means of a formula the result that the hon. Gentleman intends. The technical defects could not be put right simply with further drafting in another place.
It would be better to let consideration of this whole question continue in the consultative group. If those discussions produce some generally acceptable solution, I shall certainly be willing to consider it, but there are difficulties of principle and this formula does not produce the right answer. Therefore, I cannot advise the House to accept the amendment.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Could I come back to the question—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak again, he should seek leave of the House, which no doubt will be granted.

Mr. Wilson: With leave of the House, I should be glad of the opportunity to reply to the Minister.
The Minister said, first, that there is a question of principle. If he cannot concede that principle, there cannot be much agreement. It is essential that the principle be recognised that interference with an inshore fishing right should lead to compensation. This situation is unusual,

but the impact of the oil industry in Scotland will be phenomenal and the Government will gain large sums of money from it. If the Minister could have conceded the principle and suggested some formula of his own, I should have been prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Within a year or two, sea designation orders will probably be in force and fishing rights will be interfered with, leading to losses being suffered. There is no guarantee that the alternative legislation on insurance funds will then be in operation. This legislation imposes the liability and it is this legislation which should produce the solution.

Mr. Millan: I did not concede the principle because that would be almost meaningless unless one defined how far it extended geographically and otherwise. One must also consider the deep sea fishermen. I can see that, in practice, one could make certain distinctions, but I should have to be persuaded that they were possible before conceding the principle.
That is why I suggest that discussion should continue in the consultative group. If this resulted in a determinable principle which did not apply everywhere and would not be subject to unwarranted extension, I should be willing to consider the principle on that basis. However, I think that it would be premature for me now to say that I was persuaded of the principle. I am sorry, but I cannot say that.

Question put:—That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 23, Noes 180.

Division No. 47.]
AYES
[8.35 p.m.


Beith, A. J.
Hall, Sir John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Brotherton, Michael
Hooson, Emlyn
Thompson, George


Budgen, Nick
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Watt, Hamish


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Pardoe, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Corrie, John
Reid, George
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Crawford, Douglas
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)



Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Sproat, Iain
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gray Hamish
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Mr. Douglas Henderson and


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Mr. Andrew Welsh.




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Bates, Alf
Boardman, H.


Archer, Peter
Bean, R. E.
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Armstrong, Ernest
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Broughton, Sir Alfred


Ashton, Joe
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bidwell, Sydney
Buchan, Norman




Buchanan, Richard
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Park, George


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Parry, Robert


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pavitt, Laurie


Campbell, Ian
Hunter, Adam
Perry, Ernest


Cant, R. B.
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Prescott, John


Carmichael, Neil
Janner Greville
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Price, William (Rugby)


Cartwright, John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jonea, Bany (East Flint)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Judd, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Kaufman, Gerald
Roper, John


Cryer, Bob
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul B.


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Kinnock Neil
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dalyell, Tam
Lambie, David
Rowlands, Ted


Davidson, Arthur
Lamborn, Harry
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lamond, James
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Silverman, Julius


Dempsey, James
Lee, John
Skinner, Dennis


Doig, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Small, William


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spearing, Nigel


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lipton, Marcus
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunn, James A.
Litterick, Tom
Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)


Dunnett, Jack
Lomas, Kenneth
Stoddart, David


Eadie, Alex
Loyden, Eddie
Stott, Roger


Edge, Geoff
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Swain, Thomas


Ennals, David
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Evans, John (Newton)
McElhone, Frank
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Tierney, Sydney


Faulds, Andrew
Mackintosh, John P.
Tinn, James


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Maclennan, Robert
Tomlinson, John


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Urwin, T. W.


Flannery, Martin
McNamara, Kevin
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Madden, Max
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Ford, Ben
Magee, Bryan
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Freeson, Reginald
Mahon, Simon
Ward, Michael


George, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth
Watklns, David


Gilbert, Dr John
Marquand, David
Weitzman, David


Golding, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
White, James (Pollok)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mendelson, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Grocott, Bruce
Millan, Bruce
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hamling, William
Murray, Ronald King
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Harper Joseph
Newens, Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Noble, Mike
Woodall, Alec


Hooley, Frank
Ogden, Eric
Woof, Robert


Horam, John
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)
Orbach, Maurice
Mr. James Hamilton and


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Ovenden, John
Mr. John Ellis.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 7

EXECUTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS, ETC., IN DESIGNATED SEA AREAS

8.45 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 7, line 2, leave out from 'him' to end of line.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment, we may consider Government Amendments Nos. 13 and 14.

Mr. Smith: Amendment No. 12 is to clarify that the Secretary of State has power to delegate powers to a harbour authority to be exercised in the designated

sea area which is outwith the normal area of jurisdiction.
Amendment No. 13 is to honour an undertaking given in Committee. Its purpose is to provide that, before the Secretary of State makes an order under Clause 7(1), as read with subsection (3), delegating to an authority his power to enforce licence conditions and regulations in a designated sea area which is outside its own area but which is within the area of a harbour authority, he must consult that harbour authority.
Amendment No. 14, another Government amendment, is a drafting amendment which is consequential on an Opposition amendment to Clause 7(1) which we accepted in Committee. Since the words


"body or person" were deleted at one point, they have to be deleted here. I hope the House will agree to these amendments.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: On Amendment No. 13, I raised a point concerning the harbour authority in Committee and would like to thank the Government for meeting me at least part way on this matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 13, in page 7, line 11, at end insert:
'but before making an order which confers jurisdiction as aforesaid to exercise powers in an area which includes any part of the area of a harbour authority, the Secretary of State shall consult with the said harbour authority.

No. 14, in page 7, line 13, leave out, body or person '.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Clause 8

REINSTATEMENT OF LAND HELD UNDER ACT

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 7, line 27, at end insert:
';and before any reinstatement is carried out in terms of this subsection the Secretary of State shall consult with such other bodies as he considers appropriate'.
We are dealing here with the reinstatement clause. During the Committee proceedings, in an amendment in the name of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), the question arose of consultation with other bodies where reinstatement was involved. I think the amendment in Committee was rather wider, but I promised then that we would consider the matter in relation to cases in which reinstatement had been decided upon if there were bodies in addition to local authorities which we thought it would be appropriate to consult, and that is the purpose of the amendment. The bodies which we have in mind would be the Countryside Commission for Scotland and the Nature Conservancy Council, but in a particular case other bodies might be involved, too. This is an important element of additional consultation which I think will be widely welcomed.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I would have preferred specific consultation with particular bodies to be written into the Bill. That would have given more reassurance

to those bodies. But I accept the spirit of this amendment and the undertaking that the kind of body I had in mind in Committee will indeed be the kind of body which will be consulted. I thank the Minister for moving this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Grimond: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 7, line 37, at end, insert:
'(3) In respect of any works executed or operations carried out pursuant to the provisions of this Act, section 27 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (Conditional grant of planning permission) shall apply subject to the modification that for paragraph (b) of subsection (1) thereof there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
(b) for requiring, at such time (to be specified, in case of doubt, by the local planning authority) as the use of the land so authorised has been substantially discontinued, that any buildings or works authorized by the permission be removed, and that any works required for the reinstatement of land be carried out"'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may consider the following amendments:
No. 17, in Clause 9, page 7, line 42, leave out from 'condition' to 'requiring' in line 43.
No. 18, in Clause 9, page 7, line 43, after '1972', insert:
'(as applied by section 8 above)'.
No. 19, in Clause 9, page 7, line 44, leave out:
'at the end of a specified period'.

Mr. Grimond: The other amendments are consequential as far as I am concerned although they may have deep implications for Greenock. This point has been considerably argued between the Government and the Shetland County Council. This is a short but important point from their point of view.
Briefly, it is this, that Section 27 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 allows a planning authority on granting a planning application to impose certain conditions. One of those conditions could require reinstatement of the land in question but, under that Act, that can be done only at the end of a specified period. The point at issue is what is a specified period—because if it means a definite period of years, as would seem to be the reasonable interpretation of the Act, the


Act will be largely frustrated as far as oil-related developments are concerned. That would arise because no one can tell how long the work may be required or how long the oil-related industry may continue. Therefore it would be impossible to specify a period.
The Minister was kind enough to write to me about this on 10th January. He said that he is advised that a specified period need not be a fixed number of years. He said that, for instance, it could be made contingent on certain specified events, for example, the cessation of the use of the site for which planning permission was granted.
If that is certainly so, it meets the point of the county council. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that if there is anything further to be cleared up he will meet the council and pursue the matter further. What worries me is that on consulting such lawyers as I am able to consult, and others experienced in these matters, I find that they are very surprised to hear this. They have told me that the general development orders under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, in their experience, have always to state a specified period.
I am not in a position to enter into these rarified matters, but to the layman it would seem strange if a specified period could be as indefinite as to be limited to the cessation of certain works of unknown duration. It seems to me that if that is really so, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act needs amendment, because it surely cannot have been intended that the specified period should be as vague as all that.
I raise this matter again because it is of importance at least to Shetland County Council. I should be grateful for renewed assurance from the Minister that his interpretation of that Act is correct.

Mr. Millan: As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, we have been in correspondence about this matter. I have also been in correspondence with the Shetland County Council about it. I am not absolutely sure what the council's view is at present, but the position that it took when I wrote to it was that what I said was helpful and that the council would proceed to discuss the matter with my officials at official level.
Even if it were shown that the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act was defective, the Bill would be an unsuitable vehicle for putting it right, because the kind of amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind has a much wider application, and I do not think that we could include it in the Bill.
The amendment is defective. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about
works executed or operations carried out pursuant to the provisions of this Act
but the works that he is trying to get at, as it were, would be developments under Clause 9, which are developments at a privately-owned site. The way in which he has drafted the amendment would not achieve the purpose which he had in mind. Nevertheless, if there were a real difficulty to be put right here, it would be simply a matter of drafting.
I must say, I have been advised on this matter contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman said, that as a layman I thought that the advice sounded absolutely sensible, which is not true about all the advice I receive on legal matters. Normally I find great difficulty in believing what the lawyers tell me is the plain meaning of a particular phrase in an Act, but in this case it struck me as a layman to be very sensible that the specified period did not have to be specified in terms of years or months, and that it could be a period contingent on certain events—for example, a period of six months, say, during which no operations had taken place on the site. It could be expressed in a number of different ways. It could be a specified period which was laid down in the planning condition but was subject to qualification dependent on the circumstances. As I understand it, there is a whole lot of ways in which this could be expressed. I am strongly advised that the amendment is therefore unnecessary.
With all these legal matters I do not like to be absolutely categoric and to say that I am not subject to persuasion or argument. If it can be demonstrated that there have been difficulties about this provision which would render nugatory some of the provisions in Clause 9—to which I attach considerable importance, because they are bound up with the question of reinstatement of privately-owned land—I


should obviously consider the matter again.
I am advised, however, that, as at present, the amendment is not necessary and that Clause 9 will give local authorities the power they require. It is a power which they have very warmly welcomed. Therefore, I could not advise that these amendments be accepted, and I hope that in the light of what I have said they will be withdrawn.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I go along with the Minister in feeling that it would be wrong of us to press these amendments at this stage. It is true that they may be defective in drafting, and the Minister immediately concedes that that is not his argument against them. If they have a substance of argument I am sure the Minister will be prepared to influence another place to make an appropriate amendment at a later stage. The advice that I have been given, quite independently of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)—though admittedly I am in bed with him on one of the amendments and find it extremely uncomfortable—means that we go together in the same argument, which is an argument over the interpretation of Clause 2(6) as against the reference to the provisions of Section 26 of the Consolidation measure—the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972.
There is a contradiction—let us put it in this way—from two reasonably intelligent sources of advice and despite what my hon. Friend says of lawyers there might be some doubt about the restrictive nature of the words we seek to delete by these amendments as if they were standing in the Bill if it became an Act of Parliament. That is our argument. Section 26(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 provides that a planning authority:
may grant planning permission, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as they think fit;".
My hon. Friend made reference to the time when conditions could be made, such as six months after work ceased, or some such condition, indicating that the period of operation was over and that this was the time at which land should be reconstituted. We are all agreed that the purpose

of this section is to ensure that planning authorities will obtain the reinstatement of spoiled land. That is what we are concerned about.
We are arguing whether the statute is tight enough to ensure that. Clearly, Section 26 provides that there can be conditions, or it can be unconditional, with no specified period. On the other hand, if one refers to Section 27, at least where it is picked up in this clause, one sees that it could be argued that a restriction arises as a consequence of putting in the words as they stand. This is the advice offered to me by the British Ports Association, which would like to see the words removed in order to achieve the same intention as the Government have.
Where there is doubt about this matter—particularly among those, like my hon. Friend and myself, who are not lawyers—it is very worth while going back from time to time to make sure that the statute, which, after all, my hon. Friend is piloting through, is not defective. Therefore, I welcome his statement that if we withdraw the amendment tonight he will look seriously at the question again to see whether the advisers whom we are in a sense representing tonight are correct or whether his Department is wrong. It is a very good Department, but it can sometimes be wrong—but even while not being wrong, it may change its mind.

Mr. Millan: I have already taken steps to get further advice on this point before the Bill goes to the Lords, and if it is contrary to what I have said tonight I shall write to the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. Grimond: In view of what the Minister wrote to me and said today, and in view of his offer to talk again to Shetland County Council, if it is still worried about the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in page 7, line 37, at end insert:
'( ) Where any land is no longer required for the purposes of this Act and where it is also no longer required for the purposes within paragraph 2(a), above, the land shall be offered to the person or body from whom it was acquired'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take the following amendment:
No. 53, in Clause 10, page 9, line 9 at end insert:
'( ) When land acquired under this Act is not being developed after a period of one year following acquisition for the purposes of this Act the Secretary of State shall dispose of his interest in such land; he shall first offer it to the person or body from whom it was acquired and thereafter expose it to public sale'.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The two amendments are not directly related. Amendment No. 52 covers a point which was debated at considerable length in Committee and concerns the Crichel Down procedure. We were considerably confused at the end of the Committee stage debate on the matter, as to precisely what the position was, and I have tabled the amendment in an attempt to get the matter clarified. Where land is no longer required for the purposes of the Act, or where it is no longer required for the purpose of maintaining employment or for other purposes, but is to be reinstated to the condition it was in before it was acquired—I am thinking particularly of agriculture—the amendment provides that it shall be offered back to the original owner. That is in accordance with the Crichel Down procedure.
Amendment No. 53 seeks to avoid the sterilisation of a site if development does not take place. Therefore, if the Secretary of State acquires a site and a prospective purchaser backs out, or no one can be found to take it on, it should not lie idle when there may be another use for it. I have tried to provide a time limit, which may not meet with the agreement of the Government, but the spirit of the amendment is what matters, not its details and technicalities. We want to make sure that the Secretary of State does not retain a site and by doing so sterilise it.
I am much more interested in getting clarification on the Crichel Down procedures. I hope that having reflected on the matter with all the good will that comes from Christmas, the New Year and Hogmanay the Minister will comment favourably upon my proposals.

Mr. John Smith: I understand that the purpose of Amendment No. 52 is that we should offer reinstated land back to

the body or owner from whom it was first acquired. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan Smith) addressed his remarks particularly to agricultural land, although the amendment goes much wider than that and would apply to all land. Perhaps I may preface my remarks on the amendment with an explanation of the Crichel Down procedure. This is difficult territory because these rules and the other rules concerning the disposal of property acquired by Governments were not made in the context of this Bill and it creates difficulties to apply those rules here.
I have sought to establish the position of agricultural land acquired under the Bill and developed for some other use, for example for oil-related development, and which later becomes available for disposal, perhaps being reinstated to agricultural land. If the Secretary of State thought that that was the best purpose for it, the Crichel Down rules would not apply. The Crichel Down rules would apply only where the land had remained in agricultural use while in the Government's possession. Therefore, the short answer to the hon. Gentleman's point is that they would not apply. The amendment made in 1967, where a planning permission was attached to the Crichel Down rules, would not apply in this circumstance.
Where we believe those rules would apply is where agricultural land had been acquired compulsorily by the Government but not developed. In that unlikely event it would have remained in agricultural use and would be offered back to the original owners under the Crichel Down procedure. Where development had taken place and there had been an interruption of agricultural use, we do not think that the Crichel Down rules would apply.
The Government would have to consider the matter carefully as and when reinstatement cases arose. That is the best advice I have about a difficult situation.
That still leaves the hon. Gentleman with the argument "Why not legislate to give the land back to the agricultural landowner?" That would mean that the Government had a different procedure with respect to land acquired for oil


development purposes under the Bill than for other land they disposed of according to the rules. We should keep the procedure in line with the way in which we dispose of other Government property under the fairly well known procedures. It would be a mistake to make an amendment.
We disagree on principle here. We had a long argument about it in Committee, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that he has had a fuller explanation, because we have had time to examine how the rules would apply.
The hon. Gentleman and I are at one in hoping that there will be no sterilisation of land. The purpose of the Bill is to get on with the job, rather than to leave land blighted by the fact that it has been allocated for a particular purpose and nothing is happening. The trouble about the amendment, leaving aside any technical defects, is that if the period were only one year there might be delays which were not foreseen at the time of the acquisition. If the Secretary of State were forced to dispose of the land because the development had not come to fruition within a year, he might have to go through the elaborate procedure of acquiring it again if he wanted to go on with the development. That is the last thing we want.
The Secretary of State has powers under other parts of the Bill to dispose of land acquired under the Bill. If there is unnecessary delay in the development of a site, he can use those powers. To a certain extent, the powers the hon. Gentleman seeks are not necessary, because we have them in those other parts. The Government will not be anxious to allow delay. Nobody wants it to happen. We want to get on with the developments for which the land would be acquired.
We still disagree over Amendment No. 52.

Mr. Corrie: May we have an assurance that if land should be taken over and not developed subsection (2) would not then come into force so that the land taken over for oil development but not used for that development could be used by the Secretary of State for another purpose?

Mr. Smith: That is a different point. It is difficult to reinstate land if its use

has not been changed. We are talking about reinstatement where the use has been changed. Where the land has been acquired and will not be used, the Secretary of State has the power to give it back under other parts of the Bill which I hope would be used. That is why I do not think that the amendment is strictly necessary. It is a question of will on the part of the Government. We would not want to see land sterilised.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Amendment No. 53 was a probing amendment, to discover the Government's attitude. I accept the Minister's assurance that the Government have no desire to sterilise or blight land. I do not intend to press that amendment.
I accept the Minister's arguments on what I call the Crichel Down amendment. I was not seeking to extend the Crichel Down procedures to make a special case in relation to oil developments. I appreciate that Crichel Down applies strictly to agricultural land that has remained agricultural land. I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that in such a case the Crichel Down procedure will apply. I do not ask for a specific assurance on that point. I am prepared to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. However, I ask the Minister to reconsider the whole matter and to write to me about it.
I cannot think of them now, but there may be other examples involving compulsory powers in which the Government acquire land, develops it and then reinstates it to its original agricultural state. How often does that apply? I question whether it applies very often.
We may be creating a precedent. In the specific case that we are considering the Government could acquire, develop and then reinstate to the original agricultural state. That could be a precedent. I hope that the Minister will consider the matter of extending the Crichel Down rules if it is found to be a precedent. If it is not a complete precedent I do not argue that we should make special provision for the Crichel Down procedure in relation to the Bill. If there are other instances in which we have gone through the procedure of development and reinstatement and have not applied Crichel Down I do not ask for such provision in the Bill.
If, in his researches, the Minister finds that we are setting a precedent in which


ground is acquired, developed and then reinstated to its original state, I ask him to consider whether there may be an occasion, administratively, for reconsidering the Crichel Down procedure. If this is a special case we should treat it as such. If the Minister gives me that assurance I shall be prepared to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. John Smith: If I may speak again, with the leave of the House, I think that this is probably a unique situation. The reinstatement in question and the obligation that the Secretary of State is taking upon himself after land has been used is a highly desirable feature. It is one of the Bill's most attractive features.
The difficulty of speculating on what would happen if the procedure that we are considering were adopted arises because of the uniqueness of the situation. I have done my best to establish what the position would be. My hon. Friend the Minister of State whose Department more closely deals with these matters, will write to the hon. Gentleman and take up the points that he has raised. Off the cuff, I think that it is a unique situation, but it should be researched. The hon. Gentleman will be told of the results of our research.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with these amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 12, line 13, at end insert—
'(2) The aggregate of—

(a) expenditure of the Secretary of State under section 10 of this Act, plus
(b) loans by the Secretary of State under section 11 of this Act, plus
(c) liabilities of the Secretary of State under any guarantees given by him under the said section 11 (exclusive of any liability in respect of interest on a principal sum so guaranteed),

less any sums received by the Secretary of State—

(i) in respect of the recovery of expenditure incurred by him under the said section 10, and
(ii) by way of repayment of loans under the said section 11, and

(iii) by way of repayment of principal sums paid to met guarantees under the said section 11,

shall not at any time exceed £40 million.'.
In a Bill of this sort, involving public expenditure, it is normal to include a financial limit. The figure of £40 million appeared in the Financial Memorandum but it was not written into the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to write into the Bill a financial limitation which we believe will be adequate.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19

ORDERS, ETC.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 12, line 23, after 'any', insert 'order or'.
This is a minor drafting amendment, as indeed, is the next amendment—No. 21. There was a drafting omission in the clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 12, line 24 after 'previous', insert 'order or'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Schedule 1

MAKING AND REVOCATION OF EXPEDITED ACQUISITION ORDERS

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 14, line 29, leave out from 'representations' to end of line 31 and insert
'and the Secretary of State shall afford to any person who has made any representation an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose'.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment, we may discuss Amendment No. 47, in line 32 after 'representations', insert
'and the report of the person appointed to hear representations'.
also standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith).

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Amendment No. 47 is consequential, Mr. Speaker.
The purpose of Amendment No. 46 is simple. I am seeking to write into the


expedited acquisition order procedure the opportunity for those who object to their land being acquired or who are affected by the procedure to make written representations to the Secretary of State and to make it obligatory on him to give them the opportunity for their objections to be heard.
I do not expect the Government to accept the amendment because, I imagine, they will say that it cuts across the expedited acquisition procedure. We rehearsed many of the arguments in Committee, and I will not repeat them all. I merely put two brief points.
First, many of us doubt whether this procedure is necessary. Even if it is necessary, we do not believe that the form proposed in the Bill gets to the root of the problem. If the procedure is not necessary, we should write into the Bill as much protection as possible for those affected, and the amendment would give people the right to be heard in cases where their individual rights and property may be affected.
Secondly, I contemplated putting down such an amendment in Committee but did not do so because I accepted that it would drive a big hole through the Government's intentions. On reflection since then, however, I am less worried about driving a hole through the Bill. I have had representations on the matter not only from the Scottish Landowners' Federation and other such organisations, but also from the Law Society of Scotland. The Law Society feels that the expedited order procedure cuts across the rights of individuals, and it commends the amendment. I have respect for the opinions of such a body, and with the strength of its support I have considerable confidence in moving the amendment.

Mr. Skeet: Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 should be withdrawn and remodelled, particularly as similar words appeared in Schedule 2 of the Land Commission Act 1967, that ill-fated measure which was subsequently repealed. But the wording in that Act had an addendum—
… unless in the circumstances of the case that Minister considers it expedient to do so.
One would have thought that if the Minister wished to use such terminology again,

he would at least have given the individual the right to be represented and to express his case.
I see no justification, in this age of so-called participation, particularly when special powers are being utilised, for such opportunity to individuals not to be afforded. The only other parallel we have is in the Emergency Powers Defence Regulations 1939. In that far greater emergency, the Minister, under Regulation 51, could
… take possession of any land, and may give such directions as appear to the competent authority to be necessary or expedient in connection with the taking of possession of that land.
In an emergency such as war we confer on the Government of the day all the powers needed to act with expedition. In a situation like this, which is to facilitate North Sea oil operations, these extreme powers are not required. I suggest that the Minister looks at this provision again. This is a special procedure which should be used only rarely. I hope that he will delete it and insert the words suggested in the amendment or devise better words of his own.

Mr. Millan: The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) mentioned incidentally that he thought I would resist this amendment on the grounds that it cut into the purpose of having expedited acquisition orders. I am afraid that it does and for that reason I must resist the amendment.
The procedure for representations to be made on expedited acquisition orders is laid out in Schedule 1. There is the planning procedure which will have been gone through before an order can be made. That is the most important safeguard in terms of giving full ventilation to the planning arguments. The order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in this House and the other place.
In those circumstances to add what would amount to a public inquiry procedure would destroy the purpose of the Bill. We would no longer have an expedited acquisition order procedure but something strictly comparable to the ordinary compulsory purchase procedure. This matter is so basic and has been argued so frequently that I do not believe


that I need say more. I could not accept the amendment because it would mean the acceptance of a wrecking amendment. The whole purpose of the Bill on this question of expedition would be lost.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 195.

Division No. 48.]
AYES
[9.22 p.m.


Aitken, Jonathan
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Beith, A. J.
Hannam, John
Rathbone, Tim


Benyon, W.
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Biffen, John
Hawkins, Paul
Reid, George


Biggs-Davison, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Henderson, Douglas
Rifkind, Malcolm


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hooson, Emlyn
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brittan, Leon
Hunt, John
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Brotherton, Michael
Hurd, Douglas
Scott, Nicholas


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Budgen, Nick
James, David
Shepherd, Colin


Bulmer, Esmond
Jessel, Toby
Shersby, Michael


Burden, F. A.
Jopling Michael
Silvester, Fred


Carlisle, Mark
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sims, Roger


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Skeet, T. H. H.


Churchill, W. S.
Kershaw, Anthony
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Spence, John


Clark, William (Croydon S)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Cockcroft, John
Lamont, Norman
Sproat, Iain


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lane, David
Stainton, Keith


Cope, John
Lawrence, Ivan
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cormack, Patrick
Lawson, Nigel
Stanley, John


Corrie, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Costain, A. P.
Lloyd, Ian
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Crawford, Douglas
Loveridge, John
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Crowder, F. P.
Luce, Richard
Stokes, John


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Macfarlane, Neil
Stradling Thomas, J.


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
MacGregor, John
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Tebbit, Norman


Durant, Tony
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mates, Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Elliott, Sir William
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thompson, George


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Mayhew, Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D.


Eyre, Reginald
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Fairgrieve, Russell
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Farr, John
Mills, Peter
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Moate, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Monro, Hector
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Montgomery, Fergus
Watt, Hamish


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Weatherill, Bernard


Fox, Marcus
Neave, Airey
Welsh, Andrew


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Nelson, Anthony
Wigley, Dafydd


Gilmour, Sir John (East fife)
Neubert, Michael
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Goodhart, Philip
Nott, John



Goodhew, Victor
Osborn, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Hamish Gray and


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Pardoe, John
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant.


Grist, Ian
Parkinson, Cecil



Hall, Sir John
Pattie, Geoffrey





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen


Archer, Peter
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Armstrong, Ernest
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)


Atkinson, Norman
Buchan, Norman
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Buchanan, Richard
Cryer, Bob


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)


Bates, Alt
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dalyell, Tam


Bean, R. E.
Campbell, Ian
Davidson, Arthur


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cant, R. B.
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Carmichael, Neil
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bidwell, Sydney
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dempsey, James


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cartwright, John
Doig, Peter


Boardman, H.
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Dormand, J. D.


Booth, Albert
Coleman, Donald
Douglas-Mann, Bruce




Duffy, A. E. P.
Kinnock Neil
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Dunn, James A.
Lambie, David
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dunnett, Jack
Lamborn, Harry
Roderick, Caerwyn


Eadie, Alex
Lamond, James
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Edge, Geoff
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lee, John
Rooker, J. W.


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Roper, John


Ennals, David
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Rose, Paul B.


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Evans, John (Newton)
Lipton, Marcus
Rowlands, Ted


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Litterick, Tom
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Faulds, Andrew
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E
Loyden, Eddie
Sillars, James


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silverman, Julius


Flannery, Martin
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Skinner, Dennis


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Small, William


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McCartney, Hugh
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Ford, Ben
McElhone, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Freeson, Reginald
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Spriggs, Leslie


Garretl, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mackintosh, John P.
Stallard, A. W.


George, Bruce
Maclennan, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)


Gilbert, Dr John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stoddart, David


Golding, John
McNamara, Kevin
Stott, Roger


Gourlay, Harry
Madden, Max
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Grant, John (Islington C)
Magee, Bryan
Swain, Thomas


Grocott, Bruce
Mahon, Simon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Marquand, David
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hamling, William
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Harper Joseph
Meacher, Michael
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tierney, Sydney


Hooley, Frank
Mendelson, John
Tinn, James


Horam, John
Millan, Bruce
Tomlinson, John


Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Urwin, T. W.


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Murray, Ronald King
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Newens, Stanley
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Noble, Mike
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric
Ward, Michael


Hunter, Adam
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Watkins, David


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Orbach, Maurice
Weitzman, David


Janner Greville
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ovenden, John
White, James (Pollok)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Park, George
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


John, Brynmor
Parry, Robert
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Pavitt, Laurie
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Perry, Ernest
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Prescott, John
Woodall, Alec


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Woof, Robert


Judd, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)



Kaufman, Gerald
Radice, Giles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Kelley, Richard
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mr. John Ellis and


Kerr, Russell
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. James Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 3

MAKING AND REVOCATION OF SEA DESIGNATION ORDERS

9.30 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 18, line 5, at end insert:
'(2) A copy of a notice published under subparagraph (1) above shall, within 48 hours of the date when the notice is first published, be served on any harbour authority appearing to the Secretary of State to be likely to be affected by the proposed order'.
It is not often that a gamekeeper turns poacher, but in my time I have had to counter amendments suggesting that it is invidious for a Secretary of State or a Minister to have to advertise or make known to everybody involved the consequences

of certain intentions of a Department. On this occasion I regard it as a reasonable request that the schedule should be amended in the way I suggest.
The schedule is concerned with public notice and the provision states that the Secretary of State shall publish these matters
in two successive weeks in one or more local newspapers circulating in the localities …
It is surely not unreasonable to ask that, in addition, if a harbour authority in the Secretary of State's opinion is involved, that authority, too, should be served with a notice. The provision is not phrased in such a way that every harbour authority must be served but so that harbour authorities as determined by the Secretary of State may be involved.
My amendment could not be put more mildly or modestly. If the Minister says


that the amendment is unnecessary and argues that the Secretary of State can handle this matter administratively, I would rest content with that assurance. But, if I am not given that assurance, I believe that it will be unjust for harbour authorities who may be affected by orders to have to rely on spotting these matters in local newspapers. It seems an extraordinary way to deal with matters between Government and public trusts.

Mr. John Smith: The mere designation of an area as a designated sea area does not affect the interests of a harbour authority because no action flows from the designation order, and no subsequent action within a designated sea area can be taken without involving the harbour authority and giving it the opportunity to express views. In other words, the mere making of an order does not affect the situation. It is the next step that affects authorities.
Before a licence is granted under Clause 4, the Secretary of State must consult the harbour authority. That is where the protection arises. In many cases it is likely that the power to enforce licence conditions and regulations will, under Clause 7, be delegated to the harbour authority. For these reasons, it is unnecessary to serve notice on it before a designation order is made.
I assure my hon. Friend that, in addition to the statutory consultations under Clauses 4 and 6, there will be administrative arrangements for full consultation with any affected harbour authority. The Government would prefer to arrange such consultation in the manner proposed in the Bill rather than by singling out harbour authorities for formal service of notices.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: That is an admirable reply. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.—

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales' Consent (in respect of the Principality and Stewartry of Scotland), signified.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I do not intend to say a great deal on Third Reading. We have had a full debate on the Bill both in Committee and on Report, but I should like to make a number of points.
In some respects, I have some criticisms of the Bill. However, I believe that we have improved the Bill, first, on the planning question, on which we received clarification, and, secondly, on the consultations with the fishing industry. To that extent I thank the Government for the improvements that have been made.
It is only right, now that we see the Bill in the state in which it is to go to the House of Lords, to question whether it is relevant for the situation in Scotland today and the need to develop the offshore oil industry.
I question the Bill's relevance in that it does not deal with the real root of delays—namely, planning procedures. If the Government had shown in one way or another that they were prepared to deal with the bottleneck of planning procedures, I believe that the Bill would have had greater relevance than it has. They have not done so. They have given us assurances about the consultations and the circular to be issued to local authorities on planning procedures generally, but that is as far as they have gone. The Bill does not deal with the root of the problem of delays in offshore oil development, which is planning. For that reason, it has less relevance than it might otherwise have.
I question whether the urgency that the Government have pleaded is necessary for getting the Bill put into operation is justified by the situation today. The Government took from February to October last year before introducing the Bill. It it was so urgent, why did they not deal with it in the summer?
Last week the Government gave planning permission for three sites at Hunterston, Portavadie and Campbeltown. I do not criticise the Government for the time that they took to reach their decisions on those three sites, but I do not understand where the urgency lies. As all the comments in the Press by the oil companies and others concerned pointed out over the weekend, now that we have those three additional sites it is questionable whether the expedited acquisition procedure will be necessary to get more


platforms built. It can be argued that we now have an adequate number of sites for building and that the powers in the Bill may not be as necessary as the Government made out. Indeed, on 11th January the Glasgow Herald carried the headline,
Big boost for platform orders unlikely.
There may not even be sufficient orders to put those sites into operation.
Another matter that the Government have not taken into account is the unfortunate slow-down in the oil industry generally, related most of all—again I quote the Glasgow Herald—to uncertainty about Government taxation and nationalisation policies. I was in Aberdeen only yesterday and I know from talking to people in the industry that there is uncertainty which did not exist two or three months ago. Much of the blame for that must rest with the Government.
The Bill is nothing like as relevant as it would have been a few months ago. By introducing it in this form and at this time the Government have missed the bus of helping the development of this industry. Hunterston is one example of the way in which the Government have failed to justify these powers. They intend to use them to nationalise the production site there, although the development company, in co-operation with private companies, is ready to go into production. Nothing in the Bill will improve that situation and the Minister of State has told us nothing to change that view.
What is left in the Bill which is urgent and necessary? Admittedly the reinstatement powers are worth while, but they must be examined. The Government laid great stress on them on Second Reading and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy said tonight that they were one of the most attractive features of the Bill. The Minister of State made the same point last Friday when he made his announcement about new sites for platforms.
But these powers are simply residual. The Government can continue industrial development on some of these sites and in certain circumstances that may be a good thing, but it is not a fair representation to claim reinstatement as a major part of the Bill. The Government intend to use the powers as a fall-back

In the absence of other development. This must be watched by those in the areas where these developments take place. Many people in those areas are prepared to see them for the purposes of expediting the development of offshore oil. They do not particularly want to see these developments for general industrial purposes, which perhaps is what they will be left with.
Many of the powers in relation to reinstatement are good as long as one gets them in context and understands how they operate in relation to other powers. I believe we see in this Bill an extension of nationalisation and of Socialism for no real practical purposes. I oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: I cannot refrain from commenting upon the curious conduct of the Conservative Party. If this is a Bill to introduce Socialism it was such a Bill last November. But then the Tories were in favour of it. Of course it was out of date and behind hand last November and it did not deal with the planning procedures but, nevertheless, the Conservative Party were in favour of the Bill. The hon. Member for Ayr in particular supported the Bill and supported the principle behind it. He urged the House to support it as well. I am surprised therefore that after admitting that the Bill has been improved, the members of the Conservative Party are now joining the ranks of the enlightened so late in the day.
First, I am glad to have the assurance of the Minister that there is no intention to use the Bill to interfere with the work already done in Orkney and Shetland. We have gone a long way in dealing with our own planning, and I am sure that the Government would not wish to complicate the situation any further. However, I hope that the Government will take note of the need for the reform and simplification of planning procedures in regard to oil and other matters.
Resources are the key. Oil will not be exploited or properly controlled by means of more and more procedures. We need housing, roads and general resources to enable a community of 17,000 people to prepare for its exploitation. Last week I used a single-track road through an area which the newspapers call the


site of Europe's greatest oil port. Unfortunately, in the middle of the site of Europe's greatest oil port was a crane stuck in the road. On the other side of the obstruction were enthusiastic contractors who wished to get on with their work. I suggested that we swopped cars. I left mine on one side of the obstruction and continued North in their Volvo. They took mine and we swopped back again in the evening. That indicates the state of affairs when there is the slightest accident on the main roads.
This is the key. Let the Government give us resources. Let them look at the planning procedures and otherwise let them support the local authorities in my area to get on with the very difficult job which they have already undertaken.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I congratulate the Government on the way in which they have tackled this legislation. During the course of the passage of the Bill the Government have accepted amendments suggested by the Opposition parties. That is a good and intelligent way of dealing with legislation. Although some amendments have been accepted, many provisions have been left in the Bill that should have been taken out of it. One of the things that stuck in the gullet in particular was the question of the expedited acquisition order, both because of the way in which it was intended to operate and because of the fact that there is a strong feeling that it is unnecessary.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) made a very sound point regarding the Conservative Party and its out-of-date Bill. There may well have been a stronger argument for such a Bill two or three years ago, when the first signs of expansion in the oil industry were becoming apparent. Instead, we had an awful silence. The present Government have come galloping along, in sight of the possibilities which exist. Even if they attempt to achieve their oil targets they are slipping behind, partly because of the lack of materials and labour and partly because of the lack of foresight shown by the previous administration in not attempting to clear the way and to get the planning and acquisition procedures correct. It is essential that in looking at this Bill we consider whether

or not it would be of very great effect in achieving its purpose.
Apart from its good points, which are related to the reinstatement of sites, the clearing up of the debris which may be left by construction companies after their work has finished, and the alteration of sites to give new and continuing employment to areas which did not have employment before, there is the grave possibility that with the proliferation of sites many of them could be of short duration, with jobs lasting a short time and with the possibility of industrial dereliction, whatever the Government seek to do. Once a community is disturbed it is not easy to restore it.
Although Government strategy appears to be operating on the possibility of orders for platforms in nine years or so, the last information which I obtained from the oil companies was that they expected about five platforms, which could make nonsense of what the Government have in mind.
Two explanations were given against the viewpoint that there might be too many sites for new platforms, possibly leading to over-production. When these figures were quoted by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) on 4th December, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy accused him of taking a simplistic view. The hon. Gentleman said:
It assumes that all platforms are producing at full blast all the time.
He went on:
these platforms have a limited life, given the very severe conditions existing in the North Sea."—[Official Report, 4th December 1974; Vol. 981, c. 1757.]
Two arguments can be made from those statements. The first is that with a given number of platforms, sooner or later they will reach their maximum output. On that assumption, given too many platforms, we could have oil production peaking too soon. I appreciate that, taking a simplistic view and multiplying the amount of oil from each given platform by the total number of platforms, we could finish up with a very substantial amount of oil, and it is true that we may need more platforms for each field in order to get continuity of production over a given period. Having said that, however, I think that the Department of Energy has made a serious mistake in its calculations.
As for the argument that these platforms have a limited life, it would be interesting to hear the Department's estimate of their life span.
I am getting a little away from the purposes of the Bill, I appreciate. However, the fact that the calculations on the basis of which the Government have introduced it may be wrong leaves a nasty feeling among those of us who live in Scotland, at the thought that so many powers have been taken by the Government which may prove to be unnecessary.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Millan: None of the speeches in this debate has sounded like a powerful argument against giving the Bill a Third Reading.
The behaviour of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has not even the virtue of consistency. It is extraordinary that a Bill which he and his right hon. and hon. Friends did not oppose on Second Reading and which in everyone's view has been considerably improved in Committee and on Report, when the Government adopted a helpful and conciliatory attitude towards amendments, should be opposed on Third Reading. I find that almost completely incomprehensible.
In fact, it is rather more than that. It is thoroughly dishonest. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns, after all, represents a party which not only wanted to take powers of the kind that we have in the Bill but wanted them to override the planning powers as well. To add to the sins of their intentions, he and his right hon. and hon. Friends produced their legislation with the specific purpose of preventing the public inquiry at Drumbuie from coming to its normal conclusion, with the Government purpose in mind of taking inalienable National Trust land. Why we should have to listen to the hon. Gentleman's sermons about the inequities of this Bill, I cannot imagine.
There is still urgency in the situation. If there is some lesser urgency in some of the matters referred to by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns, it is because we have had a year of considerable activity by this new Government.

We inherited a situation which it would not be unfair to describe as chaotic. There was no policy. There was no planning about either the preferred designs of production platforms or of the numbers required. There was no clear or coherent idea as to how the numbers required would be matched with the sites required in Scotland.

All that has been put into a more coherent framework, as indeed has the whole of the North Sea oil policy of the present Government, and I think there is very widespread recognition that on the matters that we are dealing with in this Bill there has been a very considerable improvement in Government policy since the present Government took over in March of last year.

But of course we are not dealing in this Bill simply with the short-term situation of acquiring the number of sites which are necessary. We are dealing also with the longer-term necessity to see that there is no proliferation of sites and that, once acquired, sites will be properly dealt with, managed and reinstated at the end of the day. That essential purpose of the Bill, which is as important as any urgency arising from the expedited acquisition procedure, has been warmly welcomed by local authorities in Scotland, the Countryside Commission, the Oil Development Council and all those who are informed about the real problems involved in the matter.

What the Bill amounts to is part of the overall strategy which we believe to be the right one, which is in the national interest, in the interest of the people of Scotland, and which will bring them the immediate benefits in terms of jobs and employment opportunities which the SNP policy, for example, would deny them, although the spokesman for the SNP tonight, as on other occasions, is very careful not to make that explicit.

This is an important part of the Government's policy and I commend it to the House on Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 155.

Division No. 49.]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Ashton, Joe
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)


Archer, Peter
Atkinson, Norman
Bates, Alf


Armstrong, Ernest
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bean, R. E.




Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Park, George


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Horam, John
Parry, Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)
Pavitt, Laurie


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Perry, Ernest


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Prescott, John


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, William (Rugby)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hunter, Adam
Radice, Giles


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Buchan, Norman
Janner Greville
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Buchanan, Richard
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
John, Brynmor
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Campbell, Ian
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rooker, J. W.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Judd, Frank
Roper, John


Cartwright, John
Kaufman, Gerald
Rose, Paul B.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Kelley, Richard
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Kerr, Russell
Rowlands, Ted


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Kinnock Neil
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lambie, David
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Lamborn, Harry
Sillars, James


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Lamond, James
Silverman, Julius


Cryer, Bob
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Skinner, Dennis


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lee, John
Small, William


Dalyell, Tam
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Davidson, Arthur
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Spearing, Nigel


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lipton, Marcus
Stallard, A. W.


Dempsey, James
Litterick, Tom
Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Stoddart, David


Dormand, J. D.
Loyden, Eddle
Stott, Roger


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Swain, Thomas


Dunn, James A.
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Dunnett, Jack
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Eadie, Alex
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Edge, Geoff
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mackintosh, John P.
Tlerney, Sydney


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Tomlinson, John


Ennals, David
McNamara, Kevin
Urwin, T. W.


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Madden, Max
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Evans, John (Newton)
Magee, Bryan
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mahon, Simon
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Faulds, Andrew
Marks, Kenneth
Ward, Michael


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Marquand, David
Watkins, David


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Weitzman, David


Flannery, Martin
Meacher, Michael
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
White, James (Pollok)


Ford, Ben
Mendelson, John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Freeson, Reginald
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


George, Bruce
Moonman, Eric
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Gilbert, Dr John
Murray, Ronald King
Woodall, Alec


Golding, John
Newens, Stanley
Woof, Robert


Gourlay, Harry
Noble, Mike



Grant, John (Islington C)
Ogden, Eric
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grocott, Bruce
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Mr. James Hamilton and


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Orbach, Maurice
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Hamling, William
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



Harper Joseph
Ovenden, John





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Churchill, W. S.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Elliott, Sir William


Beith, A. J.
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)


Benyon, W.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Eyre, Reginald


Biffen, John
Cockcroft, John
Fairgrieve, Russell


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Farr, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cope, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Cormack, Patrick
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Corrie, John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brittan, Leon
Costain, A. P.
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Brotherton, Michael
Crawford, Douglas
Fox, Marcus


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Crowder, F. P.
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Budgen, Nick
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Goodhart, Phillp


Bulmer, Esmond
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Goodhew, Victor


Burden, F. A.
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Carlisle, Mark
Durant, Tony
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Grist, Ian







Hall, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Silvester, Fred


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sims, Roger


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hannam, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mayhew, Patrick
Spence, John


Hastings, Stephen
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Hawkins, Paul
Mills, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Hayhoe, Barney
Moate, Roger
Sproat, Iain


Henderson, Douglas
Monro, Hector
Stainton, Keith


Hooson, Emlyn
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hunt, John
Neave, Airey
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Hurd, Douglas
Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neubert, Michael
Stokes, John


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nott, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


James, David
Osborn, John
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Jessel, Toby
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Jopling Michael
Pardoe, John
Tebbit, Norman


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Parkinson, Cecil
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pattie, Geoffrey
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Kershaw, Anthony
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thompson, George


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Townsend, Cyril D.


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rathbone, Tim
Trotter, Neville


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Lane, David
Reid, George
Viggers, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Lawson, Nigel
Rifkind, Malcolm
Watt, Hamish


Le Marchant, Spencer
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Weatherill, Bernard


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Welsh, Andrew


Lloyd, Ian
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Wiggin, Jerry


Loveridge, John
Scott, Nicholas
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Luce, Richard
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)



Macfarlane, Neil
Shelton, William (Streatham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


MacGregor, John
Shepherd, Colin
Mr. Michael Roberts and


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Shersby, Michael
Mr. Hamish Gray.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Housing Rents and Subsidies Bill and the Motion relating to Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING RENTS AND SUBSIDIES BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

REVOCATION or COUNTER-INFLATION ORDERS

'(1) The Counter-Inflation Orders are revoked.

(2) In this section "the Counter-Inflation Orders" means—

(a) the Counter-Inflation (Private Sector Residential Rents) (England and Wales) Order 1974; and
(b) the Counter-Inflation (Private Sector Residential Rents) (England and Wales) No. 2 Order 1974.

(3) Section 38(2) of the Interpretation Act 1889 (effect of repeals) shall apply in relation to the Counter-Inflation Orders as it applies to an enactment which is repealed by another Act.

(4) Notwithstanding the revocation of the Counter-Inflation Orders by this section. Article 5 of the order mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above (recovery of excess rent) shall continue to have effect, for the purposes of both orders, so as to enable a tenant to recover rent at any time during which he would have been able to recover it if the orders had not been revoked.

(5) Notwithstanding the revocation of the orders, Article 8 of the order mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above (jurisdiction of the county court) shall continue to have effect, for the purposes of both orders, in respect of any proceedings commenced before the expiry of a period of two years from the date of the revocation.

(6) Subsections (4) and (5) above shall continue to have effect during the periods specified in them, whether or not Part II of the Counter-Inflation Act 1973 (under which the Counter-Inflation Orders were made) is in effect for the whole of those periods'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): I beg to move. That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With the new clause it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss Government amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 and the following Opposition amendments:
No. 3, in page 2, line 9, leave out Clause 2.
No. 9, in Clause 2, page 2, line 41, at end insert—
'( ) Nothing in this section shall empower the Secretary of State to make an Order restricting the rents of a particular named local authority or local authorities'.

Mr. Kaufman: New Clause 1 revokes an order which imposed a rent freeze from 8th March last year and the order which extended it after 31st December. It is designed to prevent the confusion which would arise if there were an overlap between the new provisions and the rent freeze. The Government amendments and new clause would extend the Government's reserve order-making power to limit rents to private sector rents as well as to rents in the public sector.
The power to make orders to restrict rents in the private sector under the Counter-Inflation Act 1973 will come to an end when Part II of that Act ceases to have effect in March 1976. The Government accept the arguments that as we have an order-making power for public sector rents it would be inconsistent not to have an order-making power for private sector rents, too.
Dwellings in a property subject to a business tenancy under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 are excluded from the definition of "dwelling." Tenancies of mixed premises of this kind are dealt with as business tenancies, and this exclusion ensures that they remain on that side of the business-residential dividing line. Tenancies of mixed premises which enjoy the protection of Part II of the 1954 Act have always been outside rent regulation. The rent-fixing machinery of the Rent Act 1968 is not suited to business premises. The order-making power continues for dwellings the power available under Section 11 of the 1973 Act.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: The main question to which the House is addressing itself in all this is whether the powers which are contained in Clause 2, and now in new Clause 1, are appropriate to housing legislation or should more properly be in counter-inflation legislation. The Opposition hold firmly to the view which is apparently held by the Secretary of State who said on Second Reading,
the general level of rents cannot be divorced from counter-inflationary policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 906.]
We believe that it would be better to keep these powers to control rents, whether in the private or public sector, in legislation specifically for the purpose of countering inflation. The present counter-inflation measures continue until 1976 anyway and whatever succeeds them will be a matter for later discussion, but we do not accept that these powers should be part of a permanent system of housing legislation.
In addition to that first complaint we are also concerned that there might be a temptation for the Government to impose orders under Clause 2 on specific local authorities by one means or another. We discussed this matter in Committee but we were not satisfied with the outcome of those discussions. We were told that the whole concept of the Bill was that it restored autonomy to local authorities in rent-fixing matters. We should like an assurance that there is no question of the powers in Clause 2 being imposed on a single named local authority or a group of named local authorities, and that the powers in the new clause cannot be imposed on single named or groups of named landlords. We should like an assurance that the powers can be used only in an overall manner as part of a counter-inflationary package.
Will the Minister make it perfectly clear so that we may take it absolutely for granted that when the Bill receives the Royal Assent the rent freeze on residential properties will end and the phasing provisions can begin to operate? If that is the case it will clear up a lot of uncertainty, and once that fact is known outside it will settle a considerable number of worries.

Mr. Kaufman: That applies to private rents. The freeze on public rents ends on 31st March.

Mr. Scott: The fact that the business rent freeze was ended before the freeze on residential rents ended has already caused difficulties for some landlords whose lease from the head leasholder may be a business tenancy, whereas their rent onwards comes under the residential rent provisions. They have been caught by their main rent being put up with the ending of the business rent freeze. There is no way in which they can recoup that, as long as the residential rent freeze goes on. At least under the phasing provisions they will be able to recoup that extra burden that they are having to carry on their own.
We object in principle to these powers being in a housing measure. We are worried that they could be applied to individual local authorities or to individual landlords. We should like the Minister to deal with the second detailed point when he winds up the debate.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Latham: I find it a little difficult to deal with so many aspects in one group of amendments.
I want to comment on three matters. First, with regard to the new clause, it has occurred to me that if, as is desirable from many points of view, the Bill becomes an Act before 31st March, the effect will be that for private tenants the freeze will end sooner than had been expected. There are two arguments why that should not happen. One is that there is a case for the period of the freeze on private rents being in accordance with the period of the freeze applied to local authority tenants. A common date for the phasing and ending of the freeze seems to be more equitable.
Secondly, as tenants in the private sector have been led to expect, since the announcement preceding the publication of the Bill, that their rent will be frozen until 31st March, they will have a natural feeling of disappointment if the Act should become operative sooner than 31st March and the new clause has the effect of unfreezing their rents sooner than they had reason to believe.
It is too late to do anything about that in this Chamber. I welcome the new clause and the general intentions behind it, but it might be desirable to insert 31st March for the revocation of the counter-inflation orders when the Bill reaches another place. If the Bill does not become law until after 31st March, the freeze will extend until it is operative. There is a strong case for ensuring that the freeze will not end earlier if the Act receives the Royal Assent before 31st March.
Next I want to comment on the Opposition's proposal to make it impossible to name an authority in an order made under reserve powers. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm the assurance he gave in Committee that the reserve powers, while not directed at a single authority, could in effect bring into line an odd couple of authorities in, say, the London area which were proposing grossly excessive rent increases, completely out of line with the general pattern of the rest of the London boroughs. If under the Bill as it stands, an order could have the effect of being applicable to only one or two authorities out of a number to which it would theoretically apply, I do not see what the Opposition would gain with their amendment.
The only difference between the position as it would then be and the definition already given in Committee by my hon. Friends would be that the local authority concerned would lose the opprobrium of having its name cited in the order. The effect would be precisely the same—namely, that a general order could be made which might affect an individual or a couple of authorities whether or not the one or two authorities be named in the order. It is important that my hon. Friend underline too the assurance he gave in Committee about the use of the reserve powers.
I turn to the extension of reserve powers to private sector rents. The proposal is one of three welcome responses from the Government to representations made in Committee by Labour members of the Committee. It might be worth placing on record the description that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave to our activity in Committee—namely, that we were not providing a substitute constructive opposition for Conservative Members but giving constructive

support to the Bill. The extension of reserve powers to private sector rents is one of the three responses to the constructive support that we gave in Committee.
Having welcomed the extension of reserve powers and the fact that the Government agree that there is no reason to discriminate between the two sectors in the application of reserve powers, I suggest that the next step will be to persuade the Government to make use of the reserve powers which the House is being asked to write into the Bill.
I now ask for some specific assurances. New Clause 2 will deal with a problem which is symbolised by St. Mary's Mansions within my constituency. If the new clause goes into the Bill and has the effect that many of us hope it will have, the problem will have been resolved. But if the problem of tenants facing rent increases of £9 a week, as faces the tenants of St. Mary's Mansions, is not met by the new clause that we shall shortly be asked to consider, I want an assurance that my hon. Friend will agree that the reserve powers now being written into the Bill will enable or empower him to make an order affecting the tenants in the position of those in St. Mary's Mansions.
Secondly, having, I hope, received the assurance that the reserve powers will be adequate to meet the situation that I have outlined, I ask my hon. Friend for a political assurance that it will in general principle be the Government's intention to use the powers in such a way. I am trying to tread warily and not to put myself out of order by anticipating a new clause. I think that you understand the difficulty, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The use of reserve powers will be necessary only if the subsequent new clause is not written into the Bill or if it does not operate successfully. That is why I am seeking—I think with some justification—an assurance regarding the use of the reserve powers.
It seems that in tabling the new clause that we shall soon be discussing the Government have accepted that there may be instances where the proposed rent increases in the private sector are grossly excessive. I know that my hon. Friend feels—I want to comment on this matter when we come to the new clause—that


the factor which has caused grossly excessive rent increases relates to neighbourhood amenities. By introducing such a new clause he is accepting in principle that there is something wrong with grossly excessive increases.
In Committee it was established that the probability was that about 15 per cent. of private tenants who might be affected in that way. If the Government accept that there are grossly excessive rent increases which should not occur and if their other method of trying to deal with such increases fails, it seems that the Government would be justified, on the basis of the opinion that is expressed by implication, in using reserve powers to limit grossly excessive increases.
I seek an assurance that the Government will have the powers and the will and determination to use their powers in such a way if it proves necessary to do so.

Mr. Nick Budgen: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) concerning the possibility that these powers might be used against an individual authority. With great courage and clarity, in Committee the Under-Secretary of State said:
We specifically do not wish to take power to deal with an individual authority."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 3rd December 1974; c. 133.]
In the light of his important position, we naturally believed that the Under-Secretary of State would adhere to that expression of opinion. But later, when he was pressed by his hon. Friends, it became clear that that was not his intention after all. He spoke movingly of enormous increases of £1 a week as a result of the Bill, adding:
What I was saying in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) was that if a pattern were to emerge of large cities imposing enormous rent increases—my hon. Friend said £1 a week was a possibility being mooted in his city—we should clearly have to consider action under Clause 2."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 5th December 1974; c. 196.]
It is clear that an increase on average of £1 a week is regarded as enormous, reprehensible and wholly wicked for

council rents, which would justify taking the most Draconian powers limiting local democracy.
The Under-Secretary of State must make clear whether he is saying that these powers can be used against an individual authority or can only be used generally. In many other areas of the country, an increase of £1 a week on the rents is not regarded as Draconian or reprehensible. In the private sector, the building societies work on the rough guide that an ordinary family will spend about one-third of its income on housing. I suppose that, on the basis of regarding a rise of £1 a week on average in council house rents as enormous, the Minister would be surprised if he heard that at any stage wages were rising by more than £3 a week, but in November they were rising at the rate of 3·4 per cent. in one month alone. Wage increases of 30 per cent. are quite normal.
It is reprehensible to describe as "enormous" an increase of £1 per week on average for council houses. Such a rise is a small way in which a section of the community—those who need it are supported by allowances if they cannot meet anything approaching a fair rent—can contribute towards paying off the enormous subsidies now being given to council tenants. In that respect, the House should know the quite extraordinary attitude that the Under-Secretary of State evinced towards public expenditure generally when he was talking about subsidies. I hope that his remarks about them receive widespread publicity, but in the national interest I hope that they will not be translated into Arabic, because if the Arabs were to know about the Government's attitude towards public spending they would cease to lend any more money to us.
As reported at column 180 the Minister said:
It is clear that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, for obvious reasons, would like every Department to spend as little as possible. That is the purpose of Chancellors of the Exchequer, certainly in the eyes of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). We are honing to confound my right hon. Friend. I have gone round the country addressing special conferences of local authorities urging them to build far more houses and
—and this is the punch line, the great peroration of the responsible Minister—


put my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in trouble."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 5th Dec., 1974; c.180.1
That is the attitude of a Government which has a borrowing requirement of £6·3 billion and which is crucially dependent on the good will of the Arabs. I hope that in the light of the enormous sums of money now being spent on indiscriminate subsidy of council housing the Government will not limit the local democratic right of those councils which take a different view on public expenditure and believe that the time has come for some sanity in our nation's finances.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: I support a number of the comments of my hon. Friends particularly those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), dealing with the appropriateness of new Clause 1. The arguments against implanting such powers into Clause 2 have been well argued in Committee. In view of the intention expressed in Amendment No. 4 to extend these reserve powers to the limitation of private sector rent increases it is doubly important that the House should discuss this question.
It must be noted that such an innovative new clause has been introduced at this stage. It is an innovation which will have a widespread and important impact and which we should have had the opportunity of discussing fully in Committee. I would like to know whether the reserve powers can be used under Clause 2 to apply solely to the private sector while leaving unrestrained the level of rent increases in the public sector. I do not wish to imply that there might be a political motive for restraint in one sector as opposed to another but the opportunity is undoubtedly there. It is right that the House should question the implanting of this provision.
Reserve powers are, or should be, powers which the Government hope they will not have to invoke. Such powers should be of limited duration or at least subject to review. Their inclusion in an Act of Parliament makes them subject neither to duration nor review. It is the immortality of the power to control public and private sector rent increases which I find particularly objectionable. In Committee the Under-Secretary said:

a power of this kind should be of a longer-term nature ".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 5th December 1974: c. 168]
I do not think it should be.
Unless the Government are prepared to accept that the current high rate of inflation will be of a long-term nature they should leave open the possibility at a later stage of enabling local authorities and the private sector to set their own rents without Government intervention. As the main intention is to accord to local authorities the freedom and responsibility of setting their own rents it is fundamentally incompatible to introduce a clause which restricts such actions by local authorities. We have frequently been told that such powers will be used only as a long-stop. Once they become available we know how frequently these orders under reserve powers can be made.
The House and Committee have still to receive a satisfactory explanation of the circumstances under which orders under this clause may be made. We have been told that, following the expiry of the Counter-Inflation Act,
the Government do not envisage further statutory wage provisions.
If so, to what counter-inflationary criteria does the clause relate?
On 18th November last year the Secretary of State said:
rents are a key price … in the context of the social contract."—[Official Report, 18th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 910]
But what provisions of that social contract relate to the point at which the Government will take up their powers under this clause? It is a degree of certainty that local authorities must have in forward planning and meeting their commitments and which the clause does nothing to provide.
In Committee I said that this clause was particularly relevant to my constituency, because Chichester has a substantial private housing sector. We have a large number of houses owned by people just prior to retirement and a large number of resort homes which are let on half-yearly rentals, for example. These people are having a very hard time indeed.
Last week one gentleman wrote to me saying that he was receiving rents on three properties, which he was obliged


to maintain as a life tenant, of between 51p and 81p a week. Although these properties undoubtedly lack certain amenities, there can be no encouragement or incentive for him to maintain them in a satisfactory manner.
Furthermore, we have a council housing list of over 3,000 and at the same time large private sector residential accommodation left vacant. The network of Rent Acts and rent restrictions being immortalised in this clause is providing a good deal of vacancy in my constituency and a large increase in the number of homeless families and those awaiting coucil houses.
The more intervention we have with this system, the greater the anomalies which are created in the market. I urge the House sincerely to consider those specific arguments before importing into the Bill an important and immortal clause which, under the present counter-inflation orders, would at least be subject to review and limitation.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I did not intend to intervene until Third Reading, but as the Liverpool City Council has been mentioned in Committee and on Report now by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) I should like to refer to some points which have been made to me. I do not want to throw fast balls at the Minister.
The Chief Executive of the Liverpool City Council has sent me a note referring to Liverpool's housing revenue account, to which this clause and Clause 3 relate, which states:
From October 1973 rents have been collected at an average level of £3·80 per week per dwelling, but, pending a decision by the Rent Scrutiny Board upon fair rents, the difference between the rents collected and the Council's proposal for provisional fair rents has been held in reserve. This being so, the lower level of rents has been credited to the revenue account, and the maximum subsidies have been claimed and received.
The Rent Scrutiny Board has now ceased to operate without making a decision upon the Council's proposal. Under the provisions of the Housing Rents and Subsidies Bill the Council could well be required
—this may apply elsewhere—
to bring into credit the amount of rents held in reserve, reducing the rising cost subsidy claimed for the single year 1974/75 by

£2·4 million. As a result the basic element of grant under the Bill for 1975/76 and for each subsequent year would be reduced by the same amount. If such a shortfall of expected subsidy were to be met from rents it would call for an increase of 65p per week per dwelling.
I am glad that that is below the £1 a week quoted elsewhere.
They are asking for an assurance that the amount already received by way of rising cost subsidies, of about £10 million, can be relied on as the final determination for this and subsequent years. If that is not possible, it would be helpful to have an assurance that, if the rents reserved have to be credited to the housing revenue account, they will give rise to a once-and-for-all adjustment and not to a recurring reduction in grant.
I find some of this fairly difficult to assimilate, and I am prepared to pass on the letter to the Minister if he would rather reply in writing. After the comments that we have heard, however, this pinpoints some of the difficulties of local authorities, particularly Liverpool, which was singled out in Committee and has been mentioned tonight, although not in a derogatory way, by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
There is a discrepancy over lodger charges. It appears from a reply of the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) that this will now be something for the local authorities to deal with themselves. Many people have been hit hard by the freeze on rents, which, for reasons that I do not understand, seems to have been applied to lodger charges. Will any directions or advice be given to local authorities? I have in my hand a reply from the Under-Secretary of State. If he could clarify this matter I should be grateful.

Mr. Michael Morris: I do not want to press the Minister much further on these reserve powers, but I should like to quote the interpretation of the matter that he gave in Committee:
The power does not apply to individual councils.'
He went on:
If the hon. Gentleman will look at his bruised neighbour on his left, the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), he will see a man whose amendment to insert the word 'individual' was rejected by the Committee.…"


[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 5th December, 1974, c. 171.]
That of course means that it was rejected by the Government. So we should be grateful for a clear statement of exactly how these reserve powers will be applied. Either the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) will be disappointed or we shall have to realise that we have been misled.
Amendment No. 3 comes ill from the Labour Party, who for some time have been the champions of local democracy. One is suspicious when one sees how much is made of reserve powers and when an additional element is brought in even on Report. Would it not be more truthful for the Government to say frankly that they wish to keep a pretty tight control over local authority rents, and that, as soon as they think that local authorities are stepping out of line, they will clamp down? If that is not the situation, I hope that these reserve powers will be clarified.
I raised in Committee the question of compensation in the event of the reserve powers being implemented. I have talked with a number of local authorities since Committee. In terms of the broad brush techniques which the Minister is happy to use in Committee, surely broad brush compensation would be better than having to rely on the Secretary of State's generosity in the rate support grant. If this cannot be considered tonight, I hope that it can be considered in the other place. Local authorities will have to force considerable hardships on their ratepayers if these reserve powers are implemented.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Kaufman: Turning first to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham), I congratulate him once again on the fight he has waged in this House on behalf of his constituents living in St. Mary's Mansions.
There are a number of matters which require clarification. My hon. Friend is concerned in case the end of the freeze on the rents of private tenants does not occur simultaneously with the end of the rent freeze for local authority tenants. Because of that, he seeks that the freeze for both kinds of tenants should end on 31st March. My hon. Friend said that tenants have been led to expect that the freeze on private rents would continue until 31st

March. The private sector order provides that the freeze shall end on 31st March 1975 or the date immediately preceding that on which the principal order is repealed by, or revoked under, any enactment, whichever is the earlier. Therefore, I have never in pronouncements to my constituents told them that the private rent freeze would end on 31st March. I told them it was likely to end some time in March. Even if we were to end the private rents freeze on 31st March this would not mean that local authority rents and private rents would then start rising simultaneously, because it is now open to local authorities to decide when their rents shall rise. It is extremely unlikely that any particular single local authority rents will rise on 1st April.
Local authorities will make their decisions and the increases will be scattered over a period, according to the discretion of the local authority and what it wants to do. Therefore, not only will there be no simultaneity on this but there can be no simultaneity. What my hon. Friend seeks—and I recognise his motives in seeking it—is not in fact possible.
I should like to repeat and underline the assurances I gave in Committee about the way in which the power will be used. I cannot anticipate the use of reserve powers since the use of a reserve power cannot be anticipated. On the other hand, the fact that we are asking the House to agree to amendments extending that reserve power to the private sector means that we envisage the possibility that it will be used. One cannot anticipate the circumstances.
I assure my hon. Friend that what I said in Committee stands—that is about the emergence of a pattern being a signal for the possible use of the reserve power. Naturally I am willing for that to go on record in the House just as it did in Committee.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) invented for me a most agreeable fantasy in which my words were to be reprinted in Arabic. I am happy and delighted for any words of mine to be reprinted in that extremely attractive language. On the other hand, I think that the hon. Member, although utterly consistent in what he says, would not wish his words to be printed in any Conservative Party election manifesto.


When he described the kinds of reserve powers that we are proposing in this Bill as "most Draconian powers" he is, of course, as he often does, attacking his own Government which, when in office, brought in these powers which we readily used in the Counter-Inflation Act 1973.
The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) spoke extremely sternly about the need for local authorities to be able to settle their own rents rather than be confused by this wicked Labour Government. This Bill, which I trust will be passed tonight, will restore to the local authorities the right to settle their own rents which was taken away by his own Government in the Housing Finance Act 1972, which we shall be largely repealing tonight. That being so, I trust that the hon. Member's zeal for local authorities to settle their own rents will lead him into the Division Lobby with us, should there be a Division on Third Reading.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross)—

Mr. Arthur Latham: I hope that my hon. Friend will return to my points about the use of reserve powers and the scope of those powers as applied to the private sector.

Mr. Kaufman: I shall be coming back to the question of reserve powers. I was reserving as the bonne bouche of my speech my reply to the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott).
Returning to my remarks about the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, whom I congratulate on coming so gallantly to the aid of that forlorn remnant who for the time being are running the City of Liverpool, I hope that he will pass to me the letter from the Chief Executive, and I shall be glad to give him a detailed reply as soon as possible. It is a complex matter, but I shall seek to assist him.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I must quote the hon. Gentleman's words in Committee when he said, referring to Liverpool,
We should have to consider very carefully the use of Clause 2 if a local authority of the size of Liverpool were to put rents up by £1 a week, taking into account the generous subsidies we are making available. There is no reason why average rents should rise anywhere near £1 a week under the subsidy arrangements

under this Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 5th December 1974. c. 194.]
That was why I intervened as I did. The letter to which I referred shows the problem of a city the size of Liverpool, which I believe will continue to be represented by an excellent party, but I am sure that there are other authorities in the same position.
I shall pass the letter to the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful for his undertaking to reply as soon as possible.

Mr. Kaufman: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, though I must say that there can be no responsible authority which will find it necessary, with our subsidy arrangements, including the special element, to increase its rents by an average of £1 a week or anything near it. That will be embodied in my reply to the hon. Gentleman when I take account of what is in the letter from the Chief Executive.
As for lodger charges, I recognise that it is puzzling to hon. Members that local authorities can now make these decisions for themselves. It will be for local authorities to decide. The Government will no longer decide every scintilla of local government rent policy, and a happy outturn that is.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Morris) very much deplored what he called "the pretty tight control" of local authority rents. He was referring to the reserve power in Clause 2. But this description is far more aptly relevant to the Housing Finance Act, which laid down so rigidly every detail of the way in which local authorities should increase their rents.
As for the compensation point made by the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), I cannot go further than what was said in Committee. If I gave the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks, there would be a temptation for local authorities to impose very large rent increases, knowing that under the commitment which the hon. Gentleman seeks they would qualify for very large assistance from the Exchequer to compensate them for rent increases which they did not really intend and did not need to impose.

Mr. Michael Morris: How could that happen, when the Bill lays down that the housing revenue account has to be in balance, give or take a little? That safeguard is there, so that the hon. Gentleman's supposition does not stand up.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman is far too experienced in local authority finance to think that I shall fall for that one.
I turn now to the speech of the hon. Member for Chelsea, with whom I shall couple my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington in what might be a happy coupling, considering their previous associations.
The hon. Member for Chelsea should not be so appalled about the existence of these powers. They have been in a Housing Act before. It was a Labour Government's Housing Act. It was none the worse for that. We are merely going back to where we were before—namely, inserting these powers into where we believe they ought to be, that is, in a Bill which deals with housing and rents rather than the Counter-Inflation Act.
I would tell the hon. Gentleman—I say the same to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington—that these are long-stop powers. In both the public and the private sector, they are long-stop powers.
Amendment No. 9 is unnecessary because the Bill as it stands already achieves what the Opposition seek. This is because the order-making power, Clause 11(5), may apply to any specified description of authorities or dwellings only. But the Bill goes no further as regards orders, in contrast to the determination-making power in Clause 11(6), which gives the Secretary of State the additional power to make determinations applying to individual authorities. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that—even if I repeat what I said to him and to my hon. Friends in Committee—this is a long-stop power. We hope that it will not be necessary to use it. If local authorities all show good sense in the way that they approach the fixing of their rents, it will not be necessary to use it. But at the same time, we have brought this in as a reserve power in order to deal with the kind of situation which I described in Committee, and that

is the emergence of a pattern, a majority or minority pattern of the kind which we discussed in Committee. I stand absolutely by what I said to the Opposition in Committee—namely, that this is not a power designed to deal with individual named authorities, nor can it even if we wished so to use it. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, on the other hand, that we have this power ready for use should a pattern of one kind or another—a majority or a minority pattern, as one can so describe them—emerge.
As for private rents, I recognise my hon. Friend's concern about the St. Mary's Mansions position. I cannot—he would not expect it of me—give him an assurance that we shall use this power if after the New Clause 2 to be moved has been tested, the St. Mary's Mansions situation is not to his satisfaction or to the satisfaction of his constituents. But I repeat that we are not asking the House to insert this power into the Bill idly. We are asking for it to be inserted in the Bill for use should the occasion require.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not seek to draw me any further, just as I hope the Opposition will not do so as I have dealt with the specific Amendment No. 9.

Mr. Arthur Latham: I shall not press my hon. Friend about the point on which he has asked me not to press. I do not expect to get very far with the question of the hypothetical situation in which the powers would be used. But I think that my hon. Friend is, and should be, able to answer the first of my two questions about the reserve powers in the private sector, including St. Mary's Mansions, and to say whether the powers are such that they could be used to deal with that situation if what many of us hope will be the effect of New Clause 2 proves to be disappointing.
I accept that these are long-stop powers. What I am asking, in effect, is whether they can be regarded as backstop powers. The Minister undertook to check that this was so, and if it is so, I want to get it on record tonight.

Mr. Kaufman: I assure my hon. Friend that there is technically no reason why we should not do what he asks us


to do. It is open to us in the use of these powers, in both the public and the private sector, to deal with categories of dwellings. We need not deal with the whole range of private sector dwellings. We can take out a category of one kind or another.
I hope that that will help my hon. Friend, although I know that he would like me to give him far more specific assurances.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Scott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We were given an indication that it would be possible to have a vote on Amendment No. 3.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): That is so. We shall have a vote.

New Clause 2

CERTAIN AMENITIES TO BE DISREGARDED IN DETERMINING FAIR RENT

'(1) The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section 46 of the Rent Act 1968 (determination of fair rent):—
(bb) the provision in the locality after the material date of any new amenity or the improvement after that date of any amenity already existing in the locality, where the amenity is provided or improved—

(i) at the cost of a person other than the landlord or a superior landlord, or
(ii) by a body of a public nature which is a superior landlord, in the exercise of functions of a public nature; and".

(2) The following subsection shall be added at the end of the said section 46:—
(5) In subsection (3)(bb) above "the material date" means—

(a) where a rent is registered, the relevant date, as defined in section 44(4) above, and
(b) where no rent is registered, 8th March 1971.".

(3) Where a rent has been registered or confirmed on or after 8th March 1974 but before the coming into force of this section, the tenant may apply, not later than the end of a period of six months from the date on which this section comes into force, for another rent to be determined, in place of that rent, on the ground that the determination or confirmation took account of a matter which would have fallen to be disregarded by virtue of section 46(3)(bb) of the Rent Act 1968 if that provision had then been in force.

(4) Schedule [disregard of amenities] shall have effect.

(5) Expressions used in this section or in the said Schedule and also used in Part IV of the Rent Act 1968 shall have the same meanings as in the said Part IV'.—[Mr. Freeson]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.0 p.m.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the new clause we may also take the new Schedule.

Mr. Freeson: The clause amends Section 46 of the Rent Act 1968, which prescribes the basis upon which fair rents are to be determined, in line with our general undertaking in Committee to look at this possibility. It is designed to prevent tenants from being faced with large rent increases when the amenities in the locality of their houses have been improved. This would apply in the case of general improvements and also where properties have their localities improved as a result of the declaration of general improvement areas, housing action areas and priority neighbourhoods under the Housing Act 1974. It provides that in the determination of a fair rent the provision of any new amenity or the improvement of any existing amenity in the locality of the dwelling carried out otherwise than at the cost of the landlord or a superior landlord and completed after a certain date shall be disregarded.
The clause also provides that where a rent has been registered or confirmed during the current rent freeze, that is to say on or after 8th March 1974 and before the coming into force of these provisions, and where a tenant claims that the rent officer or the rent assessment committee took into account any matter which would have fallen to be disregarded by virtue of this clause had it then been in force, the tenant may apply for the determination of another rent on the basis of Section 46, as amended by the clause, in place of that which was previously registered. The procedure for applications for the determination of a new rent under this clause is set out in the new schedule.
Subsection (1) contains an amendment to Section 46 of the 1968 Act. A new


paragraph is inserted into subsection (3) of that section which sets out the matters to be disregarded in the determination of a fair rent.
Subsection (2) adds a new subsection to Section 46. It defines the dates from which new or improved amenities are to be disregarded. Where a rent is already registered, the material date is the date defined in Section 44 of the Rent Act 1968, namely the date on which that registration took effect. That is normally the date of application to the rent officer.
This means that the clause will allow tenants who, when the Bill becomes law, may be faced with rent increases which are partially due to neighbourhood improvements to apply for a new rent to be determined. It will in the future be for the rent officers and, as appropriate, the rent assessment committees, to ignore such neighbourhood improvements and in one case recommend, or in another adjudicate on an appeal on a rent to be regulated and registered.
I shall turn briefly to the new schedule. It sets out the procedure to be followed for the determination of the new rent in place of the registered rent when application is made under the new clause. It requires the rent officer or the rent assessment committee to consider whether the determination or confirmation of the fair rent took account of the matters which, by virtue of the amended Section 46, would have been disregarded, and spells it out in some detail.

Mr. Michael Morris: I find the clause most surprising. Are the Government saying that where there are amenity improvements—perhaps gardens which were previously bomb sites, or a traffic management scheme, or additional facilities, with traffic removed from an area—the tenants shall be treated as if the improvement had not been made? Are they saying that the rent levels shall remain exactly the same as for comparable properties on a main road, where the tenants suffer from noise and do not have the benefit of any of those facilities?
Do the Government realise the implications of the clause? The Minister must know that in determining their reasonable rent, particularly on large council estates, local authorities take the amenties into consideration. Some of the new developments

quite rightly have first-class amenities, which the rents reflect. The rents reflect the difference in amenties between one council estate and another, built by identical builders to identical Parker Morris standards.
Unless the clause is part of a hidden counter-inflation policy, as a sort of long stop, it does not add up. If it is a serious proposal, it would have been better if it had been put before us in Committe, where we could have considered it in depth. We saw it only just before the weekend.
I hope that the Minister will answer the point about what local authorities will do about their amenities. Are they to disregard them as well?

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I welcome the proposal in the clause, which is much overdue. It is absurd that the landlord should have taken the benefit of an improvement in a locality to which he contributed nothing, collecting additional rent in respect of it.
What a rent officer or rent assessment committee regarded as an improvement to a locality frequently meant to the low-income tenants a deterioration in the amenities they required, such as the loss of the kind of shop they needed and the gentrification which changed the nature of the area and increased the rental value but reduced the value of the area to the tenant.
I agree with one point made by the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris). It is a pity that we were not able to discuss the clause in greater detail, in Committee, although my hon. Friend the Minister foreshadowed what was coming. I am sorry that we were not able to discuss it earlier, because certain difficulties will arise in the operation of the clause owing to the various dates which may become the material dates under subsection (2).
I urge the Government to consider introducing further amendments in another place. If we have a provision that the material date shall be a date three years before the date when the measure comes into force, it will be possible for the rent officers in each locality to get to know the extent to which there have been changes there since a date in March


1972. They will be able to get to know what changes have taken place and will be able to make an appropriate allowance. With the variable dates that we have in subsection (2) the rent officers will have to assess in relation to each specific case that comes before them the changes that have taken place in the amenities of the area since 8th March 1971, 9th March 1971 or 10th March 1971 and so on, depending on the date of the last registration of rent. That will make it almost an impossible task, or at least a very difficult task, for the rent officers.
It will very nearly be impossible for the rent officers to make an adequate determination of the amount that they should be disregarding when assessing rents. It will also make it more difficult to use comparable rents as a guide to the rent to be assessed in relation to individual properties. A rent assessed on 7th March would have had taken into account all the improvements that had taken place in the locality during the previous three years. For a rent assessed on 8th March 1974 the improvement in the locality must be disregarded over the preceding period. A lower rent will be registered or the tenant will be entitled to apply for a review of any rent registered after 8th March 1974. The comparable rents will go up to a peak, and then drop down. There will be no adequate basis for using comparables to assess what the new rent should be.
I suggest that it would have been much more appropriate—I accept that whatever date is chosen there will be some anomalies—to say that the date should be put as far back as possible, to the earliest date practicable with which the rent officers are capable of coping. I would tentatively suggest a date three years before this measure comes into force. Rent officers would then disregard the improvements in the locality that have taken place since the given date. That could apply as long as a date is chosen that will not overload the rent officers completely. I hope that my suggestion will be considered seriously by my hon. Friend. I believe that it will prove difficult for rent officers to apply the test that the variable dates contained in subsection (2) provide. I believe that there

would be fewer anomalies by fixing a date in the past from which could be disregarded the improvements that have taken place since, thereby giving a greater degree of certainty to the rent levels assessed. Such an approach would make life easier for rent officers and provide a greater degree of opportunity to use comparables in determining rents from now on.
Subject to that comment, I entirely endorse the principle embodied in the clause. It is one which is wholly in accordance with the principles which I hope will be put forward in our proposals relating to land.

Mr. Hal Miller: I support the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) in his contention that a great deal of confusion is likely to be caused by the question of the material date for the purposes of the new clause.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) in his consideration of the likely effects of the clause in relation to other cases.
I pay tribute to the Minister for the care that he has taken to brief members of the Standing Committee during the recess. I express my gratitude to him for the material that he has supplied. In the main it has been most helpful but it has also been slightly confusing to myself and to those I have endeavoured to consult during the recess. The new clause follows up a letter from the Minister of 6th January. His letter did occasion some difficulty and I should be grateful if at a later stage he would give us some figures to back his assertions.
As I understand the position, we are talking about rents registered since 8th March, 1974. In subsection (3) there is now provided an opportunity to bring a claim for the matter to be reassessed. Is not this trying to gild the lilly? Will the Minister give us some idea how many improvement areas have been introduced since that date? How many registered tenancies does he think are affected? It occurs to me that we are using a steamroller to crack a walnut, quite apart from the danger of giving rise to a lot of false hopes among tenants. The definition of fair rent has worked satisfactorily for a number of years, and scarcity value has


been eliminated from it. I would have thought that this attempt to tinker with the definition will only lead us into a great deal of trouble. I should be grateful if the Minister would reconsider and, in another place, do something to resolve the difficulty.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Latham: I first place on record my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall), but for whose co-operation I would not have found myself serving on the Standing Committee at some 12½ hours' notice. I was grateful for the opportunity because it gave me the chance to follow up the points I had made on Second Reading.
I do not think that it would be right, even at this late hour, for me to let pass the opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for the care with which they have listened to the representations about the St. Mary's Mansions problem, as it has come to be known. It applies not only to St. Mary's Mansions but to many other properties, both in Paddington and in other constituencies.
As I have said, there are three amendments on Report as a result of the constructive support given by Labour Members in Committee. That view of our work in Committee was confirmed by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) when he said, at the last meeting of the Committee,
It is a pity that the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) is not with us … because I intend to be constructive this morning.… "—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17th December 1974; c. 316.]
It was only at the seventh and last sitting of the Committee that he felt able to make that claim. It was indeed the case that attempts to improve the Bill came from the Labour side, but they would not have been fruitful or worth pursuing if the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State had not been so willing to listen, understand, and try to find a solution to the problems.
I am disappointed that several suggestions that I made on Second Reading have not proved acceptable to the Government. I thought that a monetary or percentage ceiling, or an extended phasing, would have represented a more

certain solution to the St. Mary's Mansions problem than new Clause 2 may do. At the same time, I acknowledge that new Clause 2 is a worthwhile attempt on my hon. Friend's part to try to meet the situation.
Those of us who served on the Standing Committee will recall that the Minister had established that about 15 per cent. of private sector tenants were being adversely affected by grossly excessive rent increases, and that, as far as he could discover, the factor that was distorting the rent pattern was that of improved neighbourhood amenities which had nothing to do with the services provided by the landlord. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) that that should not be something from which the landlord should benefit, or something to which the tenants should be asked to make an additional financial contribution.
I hope that the solution that my hon. Friend the Minister proposes in new Clause 2 and the very detailed new schedule, which bear testimony to the hard endeavours he is making to meet the problem, will be successful, but I am afraid that I have some doubts.
I ask the Opposition, in their more constructive frame of mind since the last meeting of the Standing Committee, and following the statement by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) that fair rents had worked satisfactorily, to tell us whether they think that a rent increase of £9 a week, with which many of my constituents are confronted, represents a satisfactory operation of the fair rents system, whether they think it should be left alone, or whether they have any alternative constructive suggestion which might alter the difficult plight of those tenants facing such an increase. I should not have thought that such an increase could be regarded as light by anybody's standards.
I doubt whether the new clause will do the trick, which is why I have asked questions about reserve powers. I hope that these provisions will not result in giving the Freshwater Company, which is concerned with St. Mary's Mansions among other properties, another £468 a year for doing nothing to contribute to the amenities of a tenancy or district.
If the clause is successful and the rent officer or rent assessment committee acknowledges that of that £9 a week perhaps £6 or £7 is on account of neighbourhood improvements, will it be possible for the rent officer or the committee to reduce the rent increase from £9 to £2 or £3? As I understand the new clause and the Bill as now drafted, that cannot happen until the rent officer or the rent assessment committee has considered the representations that the tenant now has the right to make.
At the end of the freeze, if Amendment No. 34 is not carried, will the tenant facing a £6 minimum increase have to go on paying that increase until the new determination has been made by the rent officer or the rent assessment committee? I am worried about the delay, particularly when, as in the instance of St. Mary's Mansions, the matter has to come back to the rent assessment committee. It will mean that tenants will have their standard of living attacked by £150 a year during that delay. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has already said that he would regard an increase of £1 a week for local authority tenants as rather steep. If such an increase is steep for local authority tenants, an increase of three times as much must be unacceptable.
We can avoid that situation if there is some machinery for provisional determination by the rent officer, or some provision to allow that increase not to begin to take effect until after an application by the tenant has been considered and determined by the rent officer and the rent assessment committee. I have been unable to find provision for a refund. If I am unsuccessful in my first plea and the rent is subsequently reduced as a result of new Clause 2, will there be provision for refund to the tenant of any excess rent that he may have paid by having paid a grossly excessive rent in respect of the local neighbourhood factor? I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend can deal with those points.
I ask a further question. Will my hon. Friend not agree that there are some cases in which tenants may feel that it is appropriate to apply for a new determination under new Clause 2 but in which the sum of increase is not of the scale

to which I have referred? Could my hon. Friend consider offering some guidance to rent officers as to an order of priority, so that they might deal with these applications for new determinations under new Clause 2? If the margin is small, the increase will be much less than those applying to St. Mary's Mansions tenants, who are facing extremly high increases and to whom the decision of the rent officer will be very material indeed.
I hope my hon. Friend will not think that in asking these questions I am unappreciative of the way in which he has tried to respond and to be helpful in overcoming these problems.

Mr. Freeson: May I first deal with the general points raised by other speakers before replying to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) who initiated our fresh thinking on this question in the first place.
The hon. Members for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) and for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) objected to the proposal in the amendment on the grounds that it would result in rents not being related to improvements in an area where private tenants lived, whereas in a similar situation where there are large or even small local authority housing estates, which include environmental improvements, the local authority would be free to take account of the amenities of an area in fixing the rents.
The hon. Gentlemen are perfectly correct. Indeed, they have made the central point which is at issue here. The local authority, when it does this, is making an assessment based upon expenditure which it has undertaken. What we are seeking to do, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) rightly underlined, is to delete, from the basis for rent fixing in the private sector, elements of rent increases which relate to improvements which have not been undertaken by the landlords who are applying for the rent increase—in other words, improvements in the locality arising from the activity of other people and not of the landlords. That is the sharp distinction to be drawn.
The local authority has undertaken the expenditure on these estates. In the situation with which this amendment seeks to deal, the property companies in


question have not undertaken the expenditure, which until now has given rise to a difficulty, in certain situations, in relation to rent increases of a certain order.

Mr. Michael Morris: Surely that would appertain only if it were locally-determined expenditure. If it is not locally determined expenditure, the actual expenditure by the local authority is in most cases met from the central Government fund, from taxpayers who include landlords. It comes from all the people living in that area. Unless it comes specifically from individual ratepayers in the area, the Minister's argument falls.

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman is saying that if the general body of taxpayers are specifically liable for expenditure on improvements in the locality, there is an entitlement to an increase, but that in a local authority area, because there are various sources from which public expenditure is met, through the Exchequer or through the rates, such a situation should be treated rather differently. We are saying that, whether it be done by locally determined expenditure or by way of expenditure direct through the housing vote—and it would be unwise to be too categorical about which vote head these expenditures come under in local government—there is an entitlement because the community has undertaken the expenditure. This is not the case with the private landlord, except in the most convoluted of circumstances.
I stress to the hon. Gentleman that what he has said about locally determined expenditure is not strictly valid. A considerable volume of the expenditure on improvements or amenities to housing estates by local authorities comes under key sector expenditure under the housing vote.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) was not at all convoluted. It was perfectly sound. The Minister will doubtless accept that the private landlord will have to pay for the increased amenities, because he will have to pay increased rates if the amenities are enhanced. Is it not also the case that it is unjust for the tenant to benefit from amenities for which he has paid nothing if the assumption

behind the Minister's whole case is that the landlord is rich and can pay for everything whereas the tenant is poor and needs to be subsidised all the time? In many cases the landlord is poor and needs to be subsidised as against richer tenants.

Mr. Freeson: I have been advised that the hon. Gentleman has been or remains a distinguished financial journalist. I am somewhat surprised to hear from him the intervention we have just had in the light of the advice I have just received. I will remind the hon. Gentleman of one or two facts which seem to have totally escaped him. It is not the landlord who pays the rates at the end of the day. It is the tenant. Rates are paid either as part of some kind of consolidated rent arrangement or, as is the practice particularly in the case of the more expensive properties, separately by the tenants and directly to the local authority.
The argument here, arising from the second intervention by the hon. Member for Northampton, South, is that, although the general body of ratepayers—and that includes landlords, although for the most part landlords pass on the rate cost to tenants—provide the resources from which trees are planted, open spaces are laid out, and traffic management schemes are provided, the landlord should nevertheless continue to get the benefit of an increased rental value. I do not understand the reasoning behind that argument.
I made it clear in Committee that I am not suggesting that by introducing this amendment to Section 46 of the Rent Act we are establishing a pure and rational basis for the future. In Committee I indicated that I should like to have pursued further some of the alternatives which were suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington as to rent fixing or rent policy for the future. However, this could not be done within the constraints of time related to the Bill. We shall be looking fundamentally at the question of rent policy, quite apart from the review of housing finance upon which the Department will be embarking fairly soon. These are all fundamental questions.
I am not suggesting that by these amendments we are asking for some fundamental reform of the criterion of rent fixing which will stand for years


to come. It is something that has been proposed, short of a more fundamental look at the basis of rent fixing for the future, which we must come to at a later date. In the meantime, all I am saying is that the principle that we have adopted is a reasonably good one, and it will become even more valid as we move down the road to improving action areas.
This consideration extends to the kind of problems that have arisen in cases where it may be clear that grant-aided public expenditure will result in improvements in the neighbourhood. If a property company happens to be in the area of the action authority the property company or the landlord will have received grant aid.
In that context we are putting this proposal forward as a way by which we can avoid a sharp increase in rents in these areas where improvements have been attributable to expenditure by the local authorities in question.
My hon. Friend raised a very important point about dates. The date we have chosen is the date which comes nearest in time to the date in respect of the rents which are being registered for the first time. I am on record as having said that this is something which I would be prepared to look at again, if it is possible to get some more effective means of date fixing. Before it comes back to us for final decision we shall gladly give such consideration as we can to the matter, but for the present we have done the best that we can do. There may be problems which, as my hon. Friend has said, raise anomalies whichever date is chosen and whatever method is used, but we shall look again at the possibility of tightening up the date situation so that we can get a firmer policy. I hope that I can leave the matter there, with the general undertaking that we shall take what measures we can.
On the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, the matter of priorities is something in which the Government have never intervened. It is a matter for the judgment of the rent officers and rent assessment committees, and we shall consult them and be as helpful as we can. But it is not easy for a Government Department to intervene in matters of this kind, and it

may be that some tenants would not thank us for our intervention. Nevertheless, I take the point that is worrying my hon. Friend and will consult further.
Turning to the question of the waiting period before there has been a reassessment of the rent in the light of the amended Section 46, it is true that at the end of the freeze rents will go up, subject to phasing. If a lower rent is registered, part of the increase will be made retrospectively irrecoverable and the tenant would then be able to deduct it from the rent within two years under the phasing arrangements.
This is as far as I have been able to check the position between the time that the Bill left Committee and reached Report stage. I am prepared to consider this further to assure myself, if I can, as well as my hon. Friend, that we have done all we can to protect tenants who might benefit financially from the amended Section 46 but who, in the process, might not be sufficiently protected during the period between the passage of the Bill into law and the time when the rent assessment committees or the rent officer recommend or confirm a revised rent in the light of this clause. I am particularly interested in this question of a refund or something equivalent to it. I am afraid that I cannot give a full undertaking about the position tonight.

Mr. Arthur Latham: Will my hon. Friend comment on the possibility of some intermediate or transitional determination by the rent officer, so that the period of delay does not result in hardship? One of my worries is that whereas it may be fairly simple for a tenant to go back to the rent officer, when the tenant has to go back to the rent assessment committee there may be considerable delay. There ought to be available to the rent officer the considerations which the committee took into account in fixing that high rent so that the officer should reasonably be in a position to say what the lower rent ought to be.

Mr. Freeson: The procedure as we have set it out in our amendment will require tenants who wish to exercise rights under it—if their cases are those which have been dealt with previously by the rent assessment committee—to go


to the rent officer in the first instance, who would automatically have to refer to the committee. I will look at the possibility, where in any case the application or referral has to be routed through the rent officer, of its being considered by the officer on a provisional basis. I will seek advice and consider that. I cannot undertake that I shall be able to meet my hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

RENT ALLOWANCES FOR TENANTS OF THE CROWN AND GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

'Section 19(6) of the Housing Finance Act 1972 shall be amended by leaving out the words "let to him by the Crown Estate Commissioners", so that it reads "A person is also a private tenant if he occupies a dwelling and his tenancy would be a protected tenancy but for section 4 of the Rent Act 1968"'.—[Mr. Douglas-Mann.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The object of this clause is to make rent allowances payable to tenants of the Crown and Government Departments. When I moved a similar new clause in Committee I did so under the mistaken impression that the provisions in the Housing Finance Act made rent allowances payable as of right to tenants of county councils, housing corporations, housing associations and housing trusts as well as tenants of private landlords, and that the omission of tenants of the Crown and Government Departments was an oversight.
My attention was drawn by the Minister to the fact that the then Minister of Housing Construction—in the early hours of the morning, I expect—had informed the Committee that the leaving out of tenants of the Crown and Government Departments was intentional. He said that assurances had been received from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall that if a tenant could not afford the rent it would be appropriately adjusted. A similar assurance had been given on behalf of the Queen in relation to tenants on her private estates.
The Committee may reasonably have assumed, in the light of that assurance, that the Minister was intending to convey a similar assurance that the tenants of Government Departments would similarly receive the appropriate allowances. That did not happen or, if it did, it happened in such a complicated, slow and inefficient way that the great majority of tenants of Government Departments, even though they would be eligible for substantial rent allowances, did not receive them.
11.45 p.m.
To be fair, since my hon. Friend came into office the situation has substantially improved. Since our proceedings in Committee, I have had a letter from the Director of Housing of the London Borough of Merton, dated 7th January, saying:
You will no doubt be interested to know that the South Eastern Road Construction Unit of the Department of the Environment have now come to life on the question of the rents that their tenants are paying and a supply of application forms has been sent to them to be used by their tenants for them to submit so that we can establish the level of abated rents appropriate to their tenancies.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on that matter.
In Committee we got an assurance that from the end of the freeze a more satisfactory and effective scheme would be introduced to make sure that the tenants of Government Departments got their rent allowances. I still think that the rent allowances should be a statutory right and that the machinery to be used should be the same for private tenants as for other tenants covered by Section 19(5) of the 1972 Act so that there is not a considerable loss. We know that a number of private tenants, the tenants of housing associations, and so on, entitled to the allowances, did not get them because they got lost on the way. If we have a wholly separate machinery for the tenants of Government Departments, then even more will be lost.
I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that a scheme which will operate in the same way for the tenants of Government Departments will be introduced, not an ad hoc or voluntary scheme. The voluntary scheme is working better than was hoped, but it should operate in the same way as the statutory scheme. I hope that we shall have that assurance from the Minister.

Mr. Freeson: As this is such a nice debate and hon. Members on both sides of the House seem to be congratulating my hon. Friend and I on every speech, may I take this opportunity of congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) on raising this matter so that action may be taken as promptly as possible.
We have gone somewhat further than was suggested by my hon. Friend in his speech. Certainly matters have been improved and tightened up in the meantime. However, in pursuit of the general undertaking that I gave in Committee, the Civil Service Department is now taking action to implement that assurance and will introduce from the beginning of April a system of rent rebates for the tenants of Government Departments identical with that of the local authority for the area concerned. This will be achieved by asking the local authorities to process rebate application forms, and the Departments concerned will then reduce the rents by the amounts of the rebates so assessed. The cost of this processing will be reimbursed to the local authorities.
I hope that, after I have stated the position clearly and simply, my hon. Friend will accept that we are acting as he would wish us to act. It is true that, technically and legally, we are acting on a voluntary basis and not as required by law, but the effect for the tenants will be the same. I will make sure that tenants in this type of situation are fully informed about their rights under this voluntary arrangement as would be the situation were they tenants of local authority properties and, sadly I suppose, somewhat more effectively than if they were the tenants of private landlords and having to depend on general publicity material as distinct from the individual approach which a local authority can and does make and which the Civil Service Department will now be making from 1st April. In the meantime we shall do our best to ensure that, although things are done on an ad hoc basis, everyone who is entitled will benefit from the arrangements that we are making now, which will be finalised from 1st April.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am delighted with that assurance, particularly the word "identical". In the light of what the

Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

RENTS FOR PUBLIC SECTOR DWELLINGS

Mr. Freeson: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
'but without prejudice to the duties to operate a rent rebate scheme and a rent allowance scheme imposed by Part II of the Housing Finance Act 1972'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): It would be convenient, I suggest, to discuss at the same time Government Amendment No. 2.

Mr. Freeson: These amendments follow from an undertaking given in Committee to reconsider the wording of the Bill at this point. The Bill as at present drafted would insert in the Housing Act 1957, in the substantive provisions providing for reasonable rents, a requirement for a local authority to have regard to their rebate scheme in determining rents. This was queried in Standing Committee, and it is agreed that there may be a possible ambiguity in the terms of the provision.
It could be interpreted as meaning that rent levels generally in future should be fixed somewhat higher because of the existence of the rent rebate scheme. This was not the intention. The need is to include in the law on local authority rents a reference to the present position on rent rebates—the existence of a mandatory rent rebate scheme—in place of the now out-dated reference in the 1957 Act.
Given that it is now mandatory to run a rent rebate scheme, Amendment No. 1 ensures that this duty remains once the freedom to charge reasonable rents is returned to local authorities. It follows that the scheme retains its proper place for the assistance of tenants in need of help towards their rent, and that there would be no need in consequence for local authorities to use their hard-pressed local resources to duplicate this particular function of giving differential help to the most hard-pressed tenants by generally


influencing their rent levels in this connection.
It is not part of the Bill's approach that local authorities should feel any duty to argue that rents in general should be higher than they otherwise need be in order to free money to reduce some rents on a basis determined by tenant's means. The amendment simply releases them from any such constraint. The reference in the amendment to rent allowances covers the position of a small number of local authority tenants who receive allowances instead of rebates.
Amendment No. 2 is consequential on Amendment No. 1.
Although I have explained the amendments in a little detail, they are of simple intent. They are to clarify a possible ambiguity which could in some circumstances influence rents in a way in which

they were not intended to be influenced by the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 1, line 16, leave out from 'following' to end of line 19 and insert 'subsection'.—[Mr. Freeson.]

Clause 2

RESERVE POWER TO LIMIT PUBLIC SECTOR RENTS

Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 2, line 9, leave out Clause 2.—[Mr. Scott.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 117, Noes 170.

Division No. 50.]
AYES
[11.54 p.m.


Aitken, Jonathan
Hawkins, Paul
Rathbone, Tim


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hayhoe, Barney
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Beith, A. J.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Biffen, John
Hunt, John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Biggs-Davison, John
Hurd, Douglas
Rifkind, Malcolm


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brittan, Leon
James, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jessel, Toby
Scott, Nicholas


Buchan, Norman
Jopling Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Budgen, Nick
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Bulmer, Esmond
Kershaw, Anthony
Shepherd, Colin


Carlisle, Mark
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Shersby, Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Silvester, Fred


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Sims, Roger


Cockcroft, John
Lane, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Cope, John
Lawson, Nigel
Spence, John


Costain, A. P.
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lloyd, Ian
Sproat, Iain


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Loveridge, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Durant, Tony
Luce, Richard
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Macfarlane, Neil
Stokes, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
MacGregor, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Elliott, Sir William
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Eyre, Reginald
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tebbit, Norman


Fairgrieve, Russell
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Farr, John
Mayhew, Patrick
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fox, Marcus
Mills, Peter
Trotter, Neville


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Moate, Roger
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Goodhart, Philip
Monro, Hector
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Goodhew, Victor
Montgomery, Fergus
Viggers, Peter


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Gray Hamish
Neave, Alrey
Weatherill, Bernard


Grist', Ian
Nelson, Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Hall, Sir John
Neubert, Michael



Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hannam, John
Parkinson, Cecil
Mr. Spencer Le Merchant and


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Pattie, Geoffrey
Mr. W. Benyon.


Hastings, Stephen
Pym, Rt Hon Francis





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bidwell, Sydney


Archer, Peter
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Armstrong, Ernest
Bates, Alf
Boardman, H.


Ashton, Joe
Bean, R. E.
Booth, Albert


Atkinson, Norman
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty




Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Radice, Giles


Buchanan, Richard
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Janner Greville
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Campbell, Ian
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cant, R. B.
John, Brynmor
Roderick, Caerwyn


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cartwright, John
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rooker, J. W.


Coleman, Donald
Judd, Frank
Roper, John


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Kaufman, Gerald
Rose, Paul B.


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Kinnock Neil
Rowlands, Ted


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lambie, David
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Lamborn, Harry
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Cryer, Bob
Lamond, James
Sillars, James


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Silverman, Julius


Dalyell, Tarn
Lee, John
Skinner, Dennis


Davidson, Arthur
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Small, William


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Litterick, Tom
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


Dempsey, James
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Doig, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stallard, A. W.


Dormand, J. D.
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McCartney, Hugh
Stoddart, David


Duffy, A. E. P.
McElhone, Frank
Stott, Roger


Dunn, James A.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dunnett, Jack
Mackintosh, John P.
Swain, Thomas


Eadie, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Edge, Geoff
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Madden, Max
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Ennals, David
Magee, Bryan
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Evans, John (Newton)
Mahon, Simon
Tierney, Sydney


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Marks, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Marquand, David
Tomlinson, John


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Urwin, T. W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Meacher, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Ford, Ben
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Freeson, Reginald
Mendelson, John
Ward, Michael


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Millan, Bruce
Watkins, David


George, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Golding, John
Moonman, Eric
White, James (Pollok)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Murray, Ronald King
Wigley, Dafydd


Grant, John (Islington C)
Newens, Stanley
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Grocott, Bruce
Noble, Mike
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ogden, Eric
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hamling, William
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Woodall, Alec


Harper Joseph
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Woof, Robert


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ovenden, John



Horam, John
Park, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)
Parry, Robert
Mr. Walter Johnson and


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Prescott, John
Mr. Laurie Pavitt


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made:

No. 4, in page 2, line 10, leave out
'of local authorities or new town corporations'.

No. 5, in page 2, line 13, leave out 'such'.

No. 6, in page 2, line 26, leave out
'of local authorities or new town corporations'.

No. 7, in page 2, line 34, at end insert—
'"dwelling" does not include a dwelling forming part of a property subject to a tenancy to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (business tenancies) applies (but without prejudice to the application of this section in relation to a sub-tenancy of any part of the premises comprised in such a tenancy).'.

No. 8, in page 2, line 40, after 'or', insert:
'in the case of dwellings of local authorities or new town corporations, to'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Clause 6

TRANSITIONAL TOWN DEVELOPMENT SUBSIDY

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 13, after 'authority', insert:
'for the credit of the receiving authority's general rate fund.'.
The purpose of the contributions from a sending authority to a receiving authority under Section 10 of the Housing Finance Act 1972 was to compensate


the receiving authority's rate fund for the contributions in respect of town development houses which it was required to make to its housing revenue account under that Act.
Clause 6 (6) provides for sending authorities which receive the transitional town development subsidy to continue to make payments of this kind to their receiving authorities.
This amendment makes it clear that the latter payments are for credit to the receiving authorities' general rate funds.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9

INCREASES OF RENT UNDER CONTROLLED TENANCY PERMITTED TOWARDS COST OF REPAIRS

Mr. Marcus Fox: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 7, line 8, leave out
'the coming into force of this section'
and insert '27th July 1972'.
Much to the disappointment of the Government Chief Whip, I regret that I shall have to spend a few minutes on the amendment. But the Opposition have been extremely contained, bearing in mind the provocation from certain hon. Members on the Government side of the House.
On this amendment we return to a matter which we discussed in Committee. The new amendment is a compromise in that we seek to cover a period dating only from the introduction of the Housing Finance Act 1972. There is a particular purpose in doing this in that we believe that since that time the situation in the rented sector has got worse.
Certainly, on the part of the Opposition—and, I hope, certain hon. Members on the Government side of the House—there is a reluctance to accept anything which would remove housing stock from this sector. Therefore, we regret houses being taken from the rented sector, for whatever reason.—[Interruption.] There are, perhaps, moves afoot to accept the amendment at an early stage. I should be happy to give way if that is so.
As politicians we have dabbled in housing on too many occasions. There has been too much legislation, with very

little result. People are bewildered by the rapidity with which we in this place introduce successive pieces of legislation, each piece to be superseded by the next. No one is more bewildered than the landlord who in good faith has improved his property on the assumption that he will be able to get a fair rent.
For a change, I shall not talk about St. Mary's Mansions. Perhaps we can leave that block of flats alone. It has had a fairly good exposure.

Mr. Arthur Latham: As we have had, in one sentence, some reference to this problem from the Opposition, am I to take it from the statement which the hon. Gentleman has just made that his policy and that of the Opposition would be to leave those Freshwater rents as they are, with increases of £9 a week?

Mr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman knows that I detest the activities of certain people in these matters just as much as he does. But in the short time that we have at our disposal it is not unreasonable to look at the large majority of landlords who provide accommodation, many of whom do so accepting the social responsibility to try to keep their property in good repair. It is these people I have in mind in introducing the amendment.
Many people many years ago thought that the best investment they could make was to buy one or two houses in the belief that these would provide them with an income in retirement. Over the years the situation has developed so that, far from being provided with an income, the houses have become a liability to their owners who see no hope of getting back the money they put into that asset. They are thoroughly disillusioned and many landlords have taken fright at successive legislation. In all fairness they can see no hope. The Bill puts another nail in the coffin of these people.
We appeal to the Minister to give us an instance of a change of attitude. Surely we must accept that landlords have a part to play in the provision of private rented accommodation. Surely it cannot be right not to take the side of the people who took the 1972 Act for what it was and carried out the repairs that were needed. Our proposals would ensure that these people were not penalised. The clause as drafted will penalise them.
In Committee the Minister said:
On the general point, I make the further observation that, in so far as one is talking of incentives, and accepting, as I have argued on an earlier clause, that there has been no evidence in the past to suggest that general freeing into the rental market, or indeed into the regulated market as occurred in the 1972 Act, has produced this upsurge of modernisation and good maintenance in this area".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 12th December 1974, c. 306.]
If he is saying there that there has been very little upsurge, the commitment we are entering into is a very limited one. Surely these are the landlords the Minister is seeking to encourage by introducing the factor of 12½ per cent. on repairs.
During 1972–74 there were particular problems in the building industry. I am not making a political point here. It is well known that economic overheating or whatever we may call it made it impossible for many small landlords to get repairs done. All available labour was attracted to new work, where the wages were considerably higher. Therefore, through no fault of their own, the landlords found that completion of improvements or modernisation was delayed and they now find that they are outside the scope of the Bill. I hope that my plea will not fall on stony ground.
I refer the Minister to what he said in Committee in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) who pressed him to look at the plight of these people:
I am predisposed towards such treatment, but I see great practical difficulty in undertaking it.
Surely a large part of that difficulty has been removed by virtue of what the Minister said in reply to his lion. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun). He said,
Hon. Members will bear in mind that I have undertaken to look at the point raised with me by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) at a previous sitting, that is, to try to establish some means whereby there can be a check made on the expenditure undertaken to establish the basis for the rent increases".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 12th December 1974; cc. 314–5.]
That yardstick is further instanced in a letter sent on 6th January by the Minister to those of us who served on the Committee. He said,
The landlord will not of course be entitled to an increase simply by claiming that

he has spent money on repairs. A tenant doubtful of the justification for any increase claimed under this section will be able to bring the issue before the courts—either by his own action or by refusing to pay the increase without evidence in support of it—where the landlord must prove his right to it.
I accept that point and therefore the Minister will be doing a great service in accepting the amendment. The safeguards are there for the tenant. There must be evidence to support any claim. I ask the Minister, in the name of equity, to see that these people are cared for.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Freeson: The amendment, like the attempts to move in this direction in Committee, is broadly in line with what the Government have proposed in the Bill. I expressed some sympathy for the proposal in Committee, as the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) said, but added that there was serious practical difficulties, as there still are, in accepting the proposal as the Opposition have moved it. The difficulty is the improbability that genuine evidence of expenditure on repair would still be available two years or more after the work had been carried out. It is essential that documented evidence of expenditure should be available for the settlement of dispute.
I am still looking into the possibility of including in the Bill an entitlement for the tenant in those circumstances to be given access to the relevant documents, without having to challenge the increase through the courts, as a means of securing evidence for the justification of the rent increase claimed in connection with supposed repairs expenditure. It would be anomalous, therefore, for the right to recover increases in respect of repairs costs to be extended back beyond the period for which the evidence of those costs is likely to survive.
However, it is reasonable to suppose that documentation of repair costs will normally be kept—for tax reasons, if for no other purpose—for the year after the carrying out of the works. Therefore, I propose to introduce in another place, because I have not yet had time to work out these matters fully, an amendment which would create an entitlement to an increase in rents on the 12½ per cent. basis, for the dwellings under the clause, in respect of repairs carried out in the year preceding the coming into force of the Bill. That is the period for which we can


reasonably expect documentation of expenditure still to be available in order that tenants or the county court can, if need be, check the accuracy of, and justification for, the proposed increase.
I hope that in view of this assurance, which is in line with my general reaction in Committee, and which would keep the matter fully in line with the Bill as now drafted, the Opposition, will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Fox: I am grateful for the Minister's concession. I take it that it is the previous tax year, the year 1973–74—

Mr. Freeson: We have not yet worked it out in detail, and it may vary by the time it is dealt with in another place, but what is in mind is to cover the year preceding the enactment of the Bill. We have a definite and clear 12-months' period. I gave the point about the income tax year to illustrate that it is a period for which one can reasonably expect documentation to have been held for other purposes than the administration of the property. To go back beyond that would be to move into an indefinite period and create all sorts of uncertainty about documentation.

Mr. Fox: We accept the Minister's proposals, but I do not accept for one moment that landlords dispose of receipts as quickly as is suggested. To many people the expenditure of £100 or £200 is a considerable sum. It is my experience in my part of the world that people do not part with receipts of that kind for many years. Be that as it may we must be grateful for small mercies. I thank the Minister for what he has said.

Mr. Hal Miller: I wish to take the Minister up on the subject of repairs and perhaps refresh his memory. In the case of improvements, where I believe percentage increases have been operating since 1920, there have been no difficulties experienced about the actual improvements and their costs according to the people I have consulted. Any vouchers necessary have always been produced to the tenant in case of dispute.
There is, as the Minister is no doubt aware, a considerable volume of case law as to what constitutes repairs. If he is relying on such case law for the determination of reasonable repairs, I do not

see why he should not also be guided by the same case law relating to other aspects of repairs. I hope that he will bear that in mind when he considers the amendment that he has been discussing.
There was discussion in Committee about the cost of borrowing money to effect necessary repairs or desired repairs. When we were discussing the possibility of increasing the figure of 12½ per cent. I do not think that the members of the Committee were aware that in other spheres it is already allowable. I should like the Minister to consider that matter when he is considering the amendment that will be determined in another place—namely, that the cost of borrowing money to carry out the repairs should be allowable.

Mr. Freeson: I shall read carefully the points that have been made so that we can give further consideration to them in introducing the amendment in another place, on which I have given an undertaking. For the present I stand by the undertaking that I have given to the House. If there are grounds, on reflection, for varying it somewhat in the direction suggested, I shall consider them. There is at least a firm undertaking that we shall act on the basis of one year. I cannot guarantee that we shall go beyond that, but I shall consider the matter further in the light of what I read in the record.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 11

ORDERS ETC.

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 8, line 14, leave out 'giving directions or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government Amendments Nos. 13, 18, 20, 21, 22 and 23.

Mr. Kaufman: These amendments change the two new powers of the Secretary of State to give "directions" as to the method of calculating entitlement to subsidies into powers to deal with those matter by making "determinations". It is now felt that the powers could be better exercised by making determinations applying either generally or in particular cases than by giving directions. The difference between a determination and a


direction is in a sense technical. Directions are generally used to tell authorities in a formal way that they have to do something. Determinations are more akin to decisions arising out of particular circumstances, although they may then be applied generally.
The new sub-paragraph (1A) to paragraph 11 of Schedule 1, Amendment No. 23, maintains the power to vary or revoke Treasury directions under that paragraph. It is a consequential of the removal from Clause 11(4) of the general power to vary or revoke directions, which is now not required because paragraph 11 now contains the only power in the Bill to give directions.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 8, line 17, leave out 'directions or determinations given or' and insert 'determinations'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Clause 13

CITATION ETC.

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 10, line 23, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 24 and insert:
'1975.
(1A) The Housing Acts 1957 to 1974 and and this Act may be cited together as the Housing Acts 1957 to 1975'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this amendment, we may take Government Amendments No. 38 and No. 39.

Mr. Kaufman: These three drafting amendments deal with the references in the Bill to the collective citation of the Housing Acts. The need for them arises because we have moved into a new calendar year. But as the term
The Housing Acts 1957 to 1974
is a complete and meaningful expression in itself, which could stand unamended in spite of the new year, it is necessary to make the matter clear by these amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 10, line 25, leave

out 'Part II' and insert 'Parts II and III'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may take Government amendments Nos. 25, 32, 37, 41, 44 and 45.

Mr. Kaufman: This group of amendments replaces those provisions already in the Bill as drafted which deal with housing associations to which an order under Section 80 of the Housing Finance Act 1972 applies. At present, there is only one such association—the North-Eastern Housing Association Ltd. It was established to assist in the provision of houses in districts where there was serious unemployment and where local authorities had insufficient income from rates to meet their statutory obligations in respect of slum clearance and overcrowding.
It differs from other housing associations in that it now confines its activities solely to providing new dwellings to rent for tenants from a local authority's waiting list, under Section 120 of the Housing Act 1957. It has in the past provided a certain number of houses for various special purposes, such as for the employees of firms operating on trading estates, but when such dwellings fall vacant they, too, are now made available for tenants from the local authority's waiting list.
The NEHA operates in practice more as a local authority than a housing association, although it retains the main characteristics of a housing association. It is thus sui generis, and it was not considered appropriate to apply to the NEHA either the arrangements in the 1972 Act for local authorities or those for housing associations. Section 80 of the 1972 Act therefore permits the Secretary of State to vary, by order, the provisions of the 1972 Act in relation to an association to which the section applies, and to make certain other provisions—for example, as to the keeping of accounts and as to rate fund contributions to be made by local authorities.
This power was exercised in the Housing Finance (North Eastern Housing Association) Order 1972, as affected, in relation to the relevant local authority areas, by Article 4(1) of the Local Authorities etc. (Miscellaneous Provision) (No. 2) Order 1974, and as varied in relation


to the debiting of certain items of expenditure to the various accounts by the North-Eastern Housing Association (Amendment) Order 1974.
Transitional provisions in relation to the association's entitlement to residual subsidy under the 1972 Act to take account of the new authorities established by the Local Government Act 1972 were made by the Housing Finance (North-Eastern Housing Association) (Transitional Provision) Order 1974, made under Section 254(1) and (2)(a) and (c) of the Local Government Act 1972, as extended by Section 102(5) of the Housing Finance Act 1972. The provisions of the 1972 order in relation to subsidies substitute a different subsidy system from the one provided generally for housing associations in Part VII of the 1972 Act.
The provisions as to rents and subsidies which were included in the Section 80 order for the North-Eastern Housing Association now need in most respects to be amended consequent upon the changes to the local authority rent and subsidy provisions which are made in the Bill. But the provisions for the payment of rent rebates to the tenants of the association's dwellings do not need to be changed. Thus, a power is needed both to vary the existing Section 80 orders which have been made in respect of the association and to make new orders.
The provisions already included in the Bill for this purpose have been found on further consideration not to be entirely adequate and this group of amendments therefore replaces them.
As amended, the Bill will provide for rents of NEHA dwellings to be determined by the local authority in whose area they are situated, on the same basis as local authorities must adopt in fixing rents for their own dwellings.

Amendment agreed to.

New Schedule

DISREGARD OF AMENITIES

1. An application under section [certain amenities to be disregarded in determining fair rent] above must be in the prescribed form and contain the prescribed particulars in addition to the rent which it is sought to register.

2. Any such application shall be made to the rent officer.

3. Subject to paragraphs 4 and 5 below—

(a) in any case where the registered rent was determined or confirmed by the rent officer without a reference to a rent assessment committee, Part I of Schedule 6 to the Rent Act 1968 shall have effect with respect to the procedure to be followed on any such application, and
(b) in any case where there was a reference to a rent assessment committee under paragraph 6 (1) of the said Schedule 6, it shall be the rent officer's duty to refer the application to a rent assessment committee, and paragraphs 7 to 9 of the said Schedule shall have effect in relation to the procedure to be followed as they have effect in relation to a matter referred to a committee under the said paragraph 6 (1).

4. In the application of Part I of Schedule 6 to the Rent Act 1968 to any case such as is mentioned in paragraph 3(a) above, there shall be omitted from paragraph 5 of that Schedule—

(a) the words "as the case may require". and
(b) paragraph (b) and the word "or" immediately preceding it.

5. In the application of paragraphs 7 to 9 of the said Schedule to any case such as is mentioned in paragraph 3(b) above, paragraph 9(1)(a) shall be omitted.

6. If it appears to the rent officer or, as the case may be, the rent assessment committee, that the determination or confirmation of the rent took account of a matter which would have fallen to be disregarded by virtue of section 46(3)(bb) of the Rent Act 1968 if that provision had been in force, it shall be the duty of the rent officer or the committee to determine what would have been the fair rent if that provision had been in force; and a rent assessment committee shall be under a corresponding duty on a reference to them under paragraph 6 of Schedule 6 to that Act, as applied by paragraph 3(a) above.

7. Section 44(4) of the Rent Act 1968 (which defines the relevant date for the purpose of determining the period that must elapse before an application for the registration of a different rent can be entertained) shall have effect, where a rent is registered under this Schedule, as if the following paragraph were inserted after paragraph (a):—
(aa) where on an application under section [certain amenities to be disregarded in determining fair rent] of the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975 a rent is substituted for the rent previously registered, the date as from which the substituted rent takes effect; and".

8. Subsection (1) of section 48 of the Rent Act 1968 (effect of registration of rent) shall have effect, in any case where the application for registration was made under section [certain amenities to be disregarded in determining fair rent] above as if there were added at the end the words "except where, on an application under section [certain amenities to be disregarded in determining fair rent] of the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975, a new


rent is substituted for the rent previously registered; and in that case the registration shall take effect as from the date as from which the registration of the rent for which the new registered rent is substituted took effect".

9. The provisions of this Schedule shall apply in relation to a rent notwithstanding that the registration of that rent has ceased to have effect under subsection (2) of the said section 48, by reason of a subsequent registration; and the register shall be amended to show the rent determined or confirmed under this Schedule.

10. The following provisions of the Rent Act 1968, namely—

section 20(2) (contractual rent limit);
section 22(2) (limits of rent during statutory periods);
section 33 (recovery from landlord of sums paid in excess of recoverable rent); and
section 48(3) (validation of certain notices of increase);

shall have effect in relation to rent determined or confirmed in pursuance of this Schedule.

11. The power to make regulations under section 50 of the Rent Act 1968 for the purposes of Part IV of that Act shall extend to this Schedule'.—[Mr. Freeson.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1

RENTS AND SUBSIDIES

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 14, line 3, leave out 'direct' and insert 'determine'.—[Mr. Freeson.]

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Freeson: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 14, line 42, leave out 'The' and insert
'Subject to paragraph 8A below, the'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it may be convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 20, 35 and 36.

Mr. Freeson: If I may, I shall delay the House on this matter for a few minutes as it is the introduction of a new policy.
On 11th December 1974 I told the House that I had set up a working party under the chairmanship of Mr. Harold Campbell to report to me on ways in which the Government, local government, housing associations and other

bodies could sponsor housing co-operatives and co-operative management schemes, enabling tenants to participate collectively in decisions affecting them and to have a financial stake in the ownership of their own homes. The working party includes members from the Housing Corporation, the local authority associations and the housing association movement and has undertaken to provide a first report early this year.
I am anxious to do everything possible to encourage the development of co-operative housing and in the light of the report will make a further statement of policy. Meanwhile, Circular 70/74—"Local Authority Housing Programmes"—issued in April 1974 has asked local authorities to consider co-operative housing schemes in appropriate circumstances and the recent circular on the Housing Corporation and housing associations refers to the opportunities open to housing associations in the field of co-operative housing. I see this initiative as an essential part of a Socialist housing policy for the future.
Thus these amendments are but a new starting point in housing policy. They introduce co-operative housing into housing legislation for the first time in this country—a means by which the people who live in what would normally be rented dwellings may have a recognised and legal share in the ownership and/or the management of the property, with the financial backing of Government.
The proposed provision achieves this end by a simple device. It has been the well-understood practice for many years that housing subsidies may be paid only on dwellings that remain in the ownership and full control of local authorities or a housing association. If a local authority disposed of houses other than to a conventional housing association, subsidy should be promptly cut off.
These amendments will change this so far as co-operative housing is concerned on the principle that such housing should be an essential part of any policy of social ownership. But under present law it is made quite unviable financially for such a policy to be pursued. The amendments proved that where the disposal is an approved lease to a co-operative, that cut-off of subsidy should not happen.
I hope that local authorities will use their new powers vigorously. In the early days much will no doubt be exploratory. This will be a new avenue for exploration by local authorities, tenants' organisations and the Government. We shall improve arrangements as we go. I can think already of several situations and problems where this device may be helpful early on.
First, there is the old-established local authority estate, inhabited by families who have lived there for many years, who intend to go on living there, and for whom it is fully their home as much as any owner-occupier's house is his. Yet they have no say as to how the houses shall be managed, not even about the colour of the paintwork. I allow at once that many local authorities have a good practice of consulting their tenants' associations on such points, but a courteous habit is not the same as a legal right and responsibility.
This lack of rights and responsibilities strikes very deeply at the attitude people hold towards the houses and neighbourhoods in which they live—the level of identity they have with home and community. There can be something cold and impersonal about even very good, well-run estates. What is done tends to be done only when management does it. What is not done is sometimes simply the cause of complaints that "They" in the town hall ought to "do something about it."
But if the residents as a body, on a street or block or neighbourhood scale, were directly involved in the sense that, "We decide what should be done, because we pay for it and it is our families' and friends' environment", we should receive more prompt action before little defects and problems grew into big ones. Where there were choices as to what should be done, the course followed would be the one selected by the residents, and the decisions they took would determine how the neighbourhood would develop. The very action of doing things together in this way would help to fight some of the alienation that characterises so much of modern urban society.
Alternatively, there may be a block of old property in private ownership where the tenants want, would value and could pay for, better things, but where the landlord

either could not or would not provide them and would simply want to sell the property. In such a case, the tenants could ask the local authority to buy the property. The local authority would receive the new capital costs element of subsidy, which is 66 per cent. of its loan charges. It could then let or lease it to a co-operative formed by the tenants at a rent that reflected the fact that subsidy was payable. The co-operative could then have a lease for a period of years, perhaps for a period determined by the expected life of the property, perhaps shorter in the first instance.
The co-operative would enter into an agreement with the council, to be approved by the Secretary of State, as set out in the amendment. I am arranging for my Department to draft a model agreement to be used as a general framework. This could cover arrangements that were either more or less wide in their terms. It could, for example, provide for co-operative management schemes, to deal only with pure management questions, and if the agreement were confined to this, the powers of such a co-operative would be much the same as those of agents managing property for a landlord, except that here it would be a joint arrangement by a public authority and its tenants.
Alternatively the agreement could go much wider and make the co-operative substantively the landlord—a full tenants' co-operative, subject to a procedure set out in the agreement, fixing rents in the same way and deciding how the property should be run. With such a wider agreement, and a reasonably long interest in the property, we have the prospect of exploring means of giving the tenants a form of equity stake.
Such a prospect requires further study, but it is a means of offering a new form of home ownership as an alternative to conventional owner-occupation or renting—not just a half-way house or cut-price owner-occupation but, one with its own possibilities, its own individual and community values.
This is something which could evolve in the future; but meanwhile, the amendments do not envisage any startling change in the immediate circumstances of tenants who move to co-operation from renting direct from the authority. They


would not become Rent Act tenants, so their rents would not be subject to rent officers. They would remain in the local authority rent régime. Where they qualified for a rent rebate, they would still get the same assistance. What would happen would be that they would have a right and duty, together with their neighbours, to consider and settle questions now left to management at the town hall and elsewhere.
The legislative provision proposed does not establish any formal connection between co-operatives and the housing association movement. But I hope that the housing association movement will take an interest in the possibility of co-operatives, and will see its way to fostering them. They will have to be run rather separately, and there would be an interest of a supervisory kind by the local authority, by the Secretary of State, and sometimes by the Registrar of Friendly Societies.
The consequential amendments are designed to achieve two ends. First, the co-operators will remain primarily associated with the local authority housing sector. Second, the amendments achieve the purely mechanical change from the rent rebate scheme to the rent allowance scheme to which I have already referred. The effective result would be the same.
We have, of course, the Campbell Working Party on co-operatives to which I have already referred, which will want to consider how this provision can be used. It is intended to open the way for at least some of the possibilities which that working party may wish to recommend, and I do not doubt that in time there will be further legislative reform which this Government will wish to introduce to enfranchise tenants and expand co-operative housing as part of our democratic socialist policies.
This is the start of the process and I commend the amendments to the House and the policy to the community at large.

Mr. Michael Morris: May I say how much many of us welcome this initiative. Indeed, those of us who have been associated with large groups of council tenants know that there are many of them who look forward to the day when they can be part of a co-operative. However,

it is fair to say that where co-operatives are successful—one has in mind Sweden where about a quarter of the housing stock is in co-operatives—their success depends upon two things—that members of the co-operatives have a financial stake, and that they operate as a unit.
For these co-operatives to be successful, the financial stake must be real. If, as I understood the Minister to say, it will be on the basis of a long or medium-term lease situation, I am not sure that many tenants will jump for joy at the prospect of being medium-term leaseholders of the local authority. The Minister should ask the working party to face the true facts and strong evidence from Sweden and elsewhere and consider whether it would not be better to release such people altogether and make them true owners of their property.
Another point which arises is the point the Minister made about housing associations and the voluntary movement. This concerns the housing co-ownership scheme, which is in its death throes. It is perfectly possible for the option mortgage scheme to be reviewed in relation to current interest rates and current building costs. It is still a viable concept. I greatly hope that the working party will be asked to make a quick examination of this scheme, for if there is not quick action in this area there will be a quick end to co-ownership.

Mr. Sydney Irving: These are very important amendments. In reply to a question I put to him on Amendment No. 11 the Minister said that he was anxious to do everything possible to encourage the development of co-operative housing. I welcome these amendments, which are evidence of his determination and of the work of the working party. I am sure that Mr. Harold Campbell will take every advantage of the powers which are being given to make proposals which are viable and which will be acceptable.
As the Minister said, Amendment No. 20 will enable local authorities to undertake experimental schemes without losing the subsidy. This was the impediment to experiment in the past. This will give local authorities the chance which I hope that they will take to give to tenants by the formation of co-operatives an


interest in their homes and control over their environment. The other amendments deal with the control of rents and the important matter of rent allowance. I congratulate the Minister on what he has been able to do in such a short time.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I congratulate the Minister on an imaginative and welcome addition to the Bill. The Campbell committee which is looking into the whole co-operative idea of housing should be prepared to consider suggestions emanating from any quarter. I think of my own party which has debated this subject on numerous occasions and which has made recommendations which the committee may find helpful. I greatly welcome this first step and look forward to reading the Minister's remarks in Hansard.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I, too, congratulate the Minister on this proposal. In 25 years' time we shall probably be looking back at this proposal and regarding it as an historic amendment introducing a substantially new element into the housing sector.
I look forward to a change in the structure of local authority housing estates. This is a valuable development with possibilities for co-operative management of local authority housing schemes and also for the taking over by associations and tenants' co-operatives of parts of the private sector. With the private landlord inevitably dying, I do not wish to see the local authority becoming the only landlord in any locality.
12.45 a.m.
I raise one strong note of dissent on Amendment No. 35, which will exclude tenancies under co-operative schemes from the protection of the Rent Act. I appreciate that it would be complicated for the tenants of co-operatives to have their rents fixed by the rent officer rather than in accordance with the local authority rent pattern. But it is highly undesirable that tenants of co-operatives should not have the security of tenure protection of the Rent Acts. The Minister is anxious to introduce security of tenure for housing association tenants, but if the housing co-operative scheme is to work the tenants must have protection against an arrogant and arbitrary majority.
It is possible to have a majority of controllers of co-operative organisations who become arrogant and arbitrary in their management of estates. It is possible to imagine a situation in which a group in a locality decides that it does not wish to have any Protestants, or white people, or black people, and so on, in their estate. That could wholly destroy the objective proposed in the main amendments.
I therefore urge the Government—I appreciate the difficulties involved in dealing with the matter simply by opposition—to introduce as rapidly as possible a scheme for the granting of security of tenure to tenants of such co-operatives, even if it has to be introduced in advance of provisions for the security of tenure for council tenants and tenants of housing associations.
Subject to that strong reservation, I join other hon. Members in the praise they have given the amendments.

Mr. Freeson: I take the last point first, because it is an important and serious one—the question of security of tenure and related matters, given that the amendments are accepted in their present form. The model agreement which we shall be drafting in the Department, as I indicated earlier, and which will be circulated following the enactment of the Bill and possibly following the receipt of the first report of the Campbell Working Party, will ensure that there is as much security of tenure for people moving into this field from the conventional local authority tenancy and as much security with regard to rent fixing and rent allowances, and so on, as would be the case if those people had remained as conventional local authority tenants.
I have this in mind to cover the period until such time as we can consider the question of security of tenure for tenants in the public sector generally, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) will know, is something which members of our party have been looking at and to which we are generally committed.
Although there is no immediate plan to introduce!such legislation, in due course we shall look at the question of security of tenure and of tenants' rights in many respects in the local authority and housing association field. Although they are now


partly covered by the Rent Acts, under the fair rents régime, in this context it will be my intention to cover the fears and anxieties which could arise in extending into the field of housing co-operatives. In other words, I accept the anxiety that has been referred to. I experienced it myself in the past, when I was involved in sponsoring one of the few housing co-operatives that we have—there are only about half a dozen altogether. This was a point that I was seized of some years ago, when I was involved.
This is no disagreement with my hon. Friend. It is a matter of procedure. We shall cover it by the agreements, and hon. Members should bear in mind that without such agreements being approved by the Secretary of State, as the amendments require, the co-operative schemes cannot proceed. I hope it will not be long before we can come back to this question of security of tenure generally in the social ownership area to see what further action can be taken on this question of tenants' rights and to look at other aspects of what I call, broadly, tenants' enfranchisement.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) asked whether the working party would be able to receive submissions from party sources. The answer is "Yes—from any source." This is a working party, mainly concerned with the nuts and bolts of proposals for co-operative housing and it is not a working party to consider resolutions and philosophy. Before I appointed him I had a long consultation with the chairman of the working party, Harold Campbell, making it clear that we did not want general statements. That is the line he wants to take. The working party will not discuss philosophy except in so far as it is relevant to looking at options for action. Any evidence or other material submitted should be practical, rather than consisting of the generalities which we could all find time to set down on paper.
Dealing with the points raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), while I accept that it is desirable to work out, as one of the ways of developing co-operative housing, some kind of ownership stake in a collective, it is not factually correct to say that in countries where the co-operative housing

movement has grown considerably over the years such growth has been due wholly or primarily to a financial stake. It is not true in Sweden. This is a complex area to examine at this time of night, particularly against the background of a country which has a different legislative and housing history from ours. It is oversimplifying things, to put it mildly, to say that the success of the Swedish movement, and the movement in one or two other countries, has depended on what we loosely refer to as a large financial stake. This is one method but there are others.
Similarly, it is not true to say that in such situations movements are dependent upon full freeholding being a part of any scheme. The amendments make it clear that I will not be a party to encouraging the establishment of housing co-operatives with full freehold of the land. They must be seen as a form of social ownership, as being closely linked to the community at large. One of the key ways of ensuring this is to retain the land ownership in the hands of the community at large. It will be no weakness for co-operative housing. On the contrary—and this will be a matter for future discussion—it will be a good way of ensuring the strength of a growing movement, which I hope will result following these amendments and further initiatives which I hope to take.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 20 in page 15, line 10, at end insert:

'Subsidy where local authority housing functions are exercised by co-operatives

8A.—(1) Where a local authority have made an agreement to which this paragraph applies with a society, company or body of trustees for the time being approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph (in this paragraph referred to as a "co-operative"), neither the fact that they have made the agreement nor any letting of land in pursuance of it shall be treated as a ground for the reduction or discontinuance of their housing subsidy under paragraph 8 above.

(2) The agreements to which this paragraph applies are agreements between a local authority and a co-operative—

(a) for the exercise by the co-operative, in such terms as may be provided in the agreement, of any of the local authority's powers relating to land in which they have a legal estate and which the authority for the time being hold for the purposes of Part V of the


Housing Act 1957 and the performance by the co-operative of any of the local authority's duties relating to such land; or
(b) for the exercise by the co-operative, in connection with any such land as is referred to in paragraph (a) above, of any of the local authority's powers under section 94 or 95 of the Housing Act 1957 (powers to provide furniture, board and laundry facilities).

(3) An agreement to which this section applies may only be made with the approval of the Secretary of State and the terms of any such agreement shall be approved by him.

(4) The Secretary of State's approval, both to the making and to the terms of any such agreement, may be given either generally to local authorities or to any local authority or description of local authority or in any particular case and may be given unconditionally or subject to any conditions.

(5) Without prejudice to any power to let land conferred on a local authority by any enactment, the terms of an agreement to which this paragraph applies may include terms providing for the letting of land to the co-operative by the local authority.

(6) A housing association which is registered under Part II of the Housing Act 1974 shall not be entitled to a grant under Part III of that Act in respect of land for the time being comprised in an agreement to which this paragraph applies.'

No. 21, in line 23, leave out 'direct' and insert 'determine'.

No. 22, in line 36, leave out 'direction' and insert 'determination'.

No. 23, in page 16, line 6, at end insert:
'(1A) It is hereby declared that the power of giving directions conferred on the Treasury by sub-paragraph (1) above includes power to vary or revoke directions given under that subparagraph'.—[Mr. Freeson.]

Mr. Freeson: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 16, line 22, at end insert—

'Amendment of section 105 of Housing Finance Act 1972

11A.—(1) For section 105(3) of the Housing Finance Act 1972 (power to direct that Part I of that Act shall apply to a housing authority's dwellings subject to modifications) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
(3) The Secretary of State may direct that Part I of this Act shall apply to a housing authority subject to such modifications as are specified in the direction, being modifications which do not increase all or any of the sums payable by the Secretary of State to the authority under the said Part I.".

(2) The substitution of the subsection set out in sub-paragraph (1) above for section 105(3) of the Housing Finance Act 1972, as originally enacted, shall not affect the validity

of any direction under that subsection, and any such direction shall continue in force and have effect as if made under the substituted section'.

This amendment is necessary in consequence of the repeal of Parts V and VI of the Housing Finance Act 1972. It has a simple purpose—namely, to enable the Barbican development to remain outside the City's housing revenue account, as is the case at present. For various reasons concerned with the history and nature of the scheme it would be undesirable for the City's housing finance for general housing needs to be distorted by this special development.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I do not think we should allow this amendment to pass without expressing disappointment at what amounts to a drafting amendment relating to Section 105 of the Housing Finance Act 1972 in its application to the Barbican.
In Committee on 17th December the Minister—I appreciate that he has had very little time to do anything about the matter—expressed the intention of taking certain action after looking further into the Barbican in particular. Problems arising from cases in which directions have been made under Section 105 of the 1972 Act are by no means confined to the Barbican, but in the Barbican rents are rising at such a rate that the rents of St. Mary's Mansions look quite moderate.
The provisions that we have introduced into the Bill by virtue of new Clause 2 will not give any protection to the tenants of the Barbican. We shall have housing committees making their determinations on local authority rents, we shall have rent officers to assess the level of rents in the private sector, and we shall have the rents disregarding the improvements being carried out by local authorities in their capacity as landlords.
In the Barbican—this point was made by the City Remembrancer—improvements being made in the locality are put forward as one of the justifications for the further rise in rents which is now taking place. New Clause 2, if my understanding is correct, will not give protection to tenants in the Barbican because their rents do not go to the rent officer and local authority improvements will be disregarded when assessing the level of rents there.
I hoped that the Minister would introduce a further change which would protect and improve the situation of tenants in the Barbican. As Section 105 of the Housing Finance Act stands, or even as amended, there seems to be no provision for a direction once given to be later revoked or varied, because subsection (4) is not affected. Unless the direction originally given was a radical one or for a limited time, under the legislation now proposed, even with this amendment, there will be no opportunity for the Minister to make any change without yet further legislation. There will be no opportunity in future for the Minister to take the action that he indicated in Committee he was contemplating.

Mr. Freeson: It would be unwise and it is unnecessary for me to go over the ground that was covered in Committee on this matter. Section 105 of the 1972 Act enabled the Secretary of State to exclude from certain of the Act's provisions special categories of dwellings. It was specifically intended to be used for the City of London's Barbican development, although other properties could be covered by it. The Barbican scheme was built to a very high standard for letting to tenants who could afford high rents and for which there was never any intention to pay Exchequer subsidy.
The whole purpose of the amendment is to continue the position whereby this estate and others like it may be excluded from the housing revenue account and from coverage by Exchequer subsidy. It does not alter the position of the City of London in using its discretion as to how it would fix rents for the Barbican Indeed since the Committee stage, when my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) raised the matter, I had arrangements made for the Barbican to be visited by representatives of the Department. The flats there, quite apart from their location, are built and equipped to a far higher standard than houses for general needs, which themselves are built to adequate standards well in excess of those which obtained in the past.
1.0 a.m.
I do not deny that the rents are high, but they have to be viewed in the light

of the standard and location of the dwellings. I understand that they are by no means more than the market rent for comparable dwellings and I have certainly satisfied myself that rent income covers, and in the immediate future is likely to cover, only about one-third of the cost to the City of London of Barbican housing. I have also satisfied myself that the costings do not include any burden for non-housing development, for example the arts centre, which was a matter of concern and anxiety to some people in the Barbican. They are based on loan charges which include interest at a lower rate than that prevailing in most areas.
There is nothing in what I propose to prevent further consideration and consultation on matters of concern with regard to the Barbican, but I must stick to the specific intention of the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 16, leave out lines 23 to 45.—[Mr. Freeson.]

Mr. Freeson: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 17, line 11, leave out
'rental period which ended on or after 1st October 1971 and insert 'relevant rental period'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps it would be convenient to take at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 27 to 30.

Mr. Freeson: The amendments are designed to clarify the rental periods for which refunds of rent may be made under Part II of Schedule 1.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 27, in page 17, line 16, at end insert—
'(2) In sub-paragraph (1) above "relevant rental period" means—

(a) where sub-paragraph (1)(a) applies, a rental period which ended on or after 1st October 1971 but began before the determination of a rent under section 56 of the Housing Finance Act 1972, and
(b) where sub-paragraph (1)(b) above applies, a rental period which ended on or after 1st October 1971 but began before the coming into force of this Part of this Schedule'.

No. 28, in page 17, line 18, after 'rent', insert 'paid for any relevant rental period'.

No. 29, in page 17, line 20, at end insert—
'(1A) En sub-paragraph (1) above "relevant rental period" means a rental period which ended on or after 1st October 1971 but began before the coming into force of this Part of this Schedule'.

No. 30, in page 17, leave out line 29.

No. 31, in page 18, leave out lines 9 to 12 and insert
'amount arrived at under paragraph 13 (and, where relevant, paragraph 16) above; and where this paragraph requires the deduction of one amount from another, but the amount to be deducted is the greater, the two amounts shall be taken to cancel each other out.'

No. 32, in page 18, line 27, at end insert—

'PART III

PROVISIONS RELATING TO CERTAIN HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS

21A.—(1) The local authority for any area in which there are dwellings provided by a housing association to which at the passing of this Act an order under section 80 of the Housing Finance Act 1972 (power to apply to certain housing associations provisions of Act relating to local authorities) applies shall have the same powers and be under the same duties in relation to the determination of rents for those dwellings as are conferred or imposed, in relation to dwellings provided by the authority themselves, by sections 111 and 113 of the Housing Act 1957, as amended by section 1 above.

(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, it shall be the duty of the association to charge any rent determined by the local authority under this paragraph.

(3) So long as any order under section 11 of the Counter-Inflation Act 1973 relating to rents of such a housing association is in force, nothing in sub-paragraph (2) above shall authorise the charging of any rent which would not be authorised by the order.

(4) In relation to the determination of rents under sub-paragraph (1) above, a local authority shall have the same powers and be under the same duties in relation to any separate account of income and expenditure in their area which an order under the said section 80 requires such an association to keep as are conferred or imposed on them in relation to their Housing Revenue Account by section 1(3) of this Act.

21B.—(1) An order may provide for the application to any such housing association, subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be prescribed—


(a) of sections 2 to 4 above, and Parts I and II of this Schedule, and
(b) of paragraphs 8, 10 and 14(2) of Schedule 1 to the Housing Finance Act 1972 (Housing Revenue Account).

(2) Such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(3) Section 80 of the Housing Finance Act 1972 is repealed, but its repeal shall not affect the validity of any order under it, and any such order shall accordingly continue in force subject to sub-paragraph (4) below.

(4) An order which is continued in force by sub-paragraph (3) above may be varied or revoked by an order under this paragraph.

(5) The powers of variation conferred by sub-paragraph (4) above includes power to make any provision which could have been made by an order under section 80 of the Housing Finance Act 1972'.—[Mr. Freeson.]

Schedule 2

PHASING OF RENT INCREASES

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 18, line 34, after 'means', insert:
',subject to sub-paragraph (1A) below,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: For the convenience of the House, perhaps we might debate at the same time Government Amendment No. 34.

Mr. Kaufman: These amendments would alter the definition of "period of delay" so that, in the case of a rent registered on or after 8th March 1974 but before the coming into force of the provisions phasing rent increases in the private sector, the period of delay would begin on the date on which Clause 7 comes into force. The anniversary for phasing purposes in these cases would then date from the date of the coming into force of the section and not the date of registration of a rent.
These amendments ensure that tenants who have had rents registered during the freeze will not be faced with two phased increases in a single year, the first coming shortly after Clause 7 comes into operation and the second coming on the anniversary of the date of registration, as would otherwise have been the case.

Mr. Arthur Latham: This is the third of the responses to which I referred earlier. One appreciated the spontaneous


response of both Ministers in Committee when it was realised that, because of the Bill, some people would face a two-thirds increase immediately and a one-third increase subsequently—a nonsensical form of phasing. The amendment will get rid of that anomaly.
However, will the Minister confirm that, as a result of the amendment, re-registration will take place when only two instalments of the phasing have been passed on to the tenant? This means that there will be an overlap between the three years of phasing of a current increase which is due at the end of the three years and a subsequent increase which is due as a result of re-registration.
Can my hon. Friend make it clear that my understanding is correct that the third instalment will be added to any new total rent increase and then divided by three for a further period of phasing? It is important to establish this and to get it on the record, otherwise it could mean that tenants could be faced with a double increase at the end of three years, which would simply have shifted the anomaly from the beginning to the end of the phasing.
At the fifth sitting in Committee, in response to my suggestion about a five, six, or even seven-year phasing in some cases, the Minister said:
I believe there are serious problems raised by extending phasing beyond the three-year period, or a two-year period …" [Official Report Standing Committee A, 10th December 1974: c. 253.]
As I understand the arguments from private discussions I had with the Minister, one of the problems concerning the extended phasing would be that a fair rent would be fixed but might never be reached as a consequence of extended phasing.
Having now accepted, in consequence of this amendment, that an unfulfilled stage of the first set of phasing can be carried forward, after re-registration, and included in a new phasing, does not that remove the objection to extended phasing and, in a number of circumstances, meet the problems of excessive rent rises?
In further observance of the undertaking to reconsider this matter which

the Minister gave in Committee, will he see, between now and the time the Bill goes to another place, whether there might still be a case for considering extended phasing where there are three grossly excessive rent increases, any unfulfilled phases being carried forward to any subsequent re-registration?

Mr. Kaufman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for the graciousness with which he accepted the concession that we have felt able to make. I fear, however, that I cannot tonight offer him any further concession along the lines he requests, for the reason which emerges from my answer to his question—namely, what happens if a completely fair rent has not been reached because of the concession which these two amendments embody? The Bill already caters for that situation.
Schedule 2 provides in paragraph 4(1) that where re-registration starts in the period of delay—that is, before a fair rent is reached—the new phasing starts from the date of re-registration, and the rent recoverable at that date becomes the previous limit for the new phasing. This means that the fair rent which would have been reached will not be reached. It does not mean that the result will be extended phasing. It means that the landlord loses a certain amount of the rent which he would otherwise have received but that the new fair rent comes into play not literally in the middle of the period of delay but at a stage in the period of delay when the new phasing for the new fair rent starts. This does not mean an extended phasing situation. It means that the previous phasing will have been truncated or unfulfilled.
Therefore, while I am highly grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has received these amendments, I am afraid that I cannot offer him anything further at this stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 34, in page 19, line 15, at end insert:
'(1A) In the case of a rent registered on or after 8th March 1974 but before the coming into force of section 7 above, the period of delay begins on the date on which that section comes into force'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Schedule 4

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 35, in page 23, line 23, at beginning insert:

Rent Act 1968

0. The following subsection shall be added at the end of section 5 of the Rent Act 1968 (cases excluded from protected or statutory tenancy):—
(7) A tenancy shall not be a protected tenancy at any time when the interest of the landlord under that tenancy belongs to a co-operative, as defined in paragraph 8A of Schedule 1 to the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975 (housing subsidy where local authority housing functions are exercised by such co-operatives) and the dwelling-house is comprised in an agreement to which that paragraph applies."'.

No. 36, in line 24, leave out from beginning to '(which' and insert:
'1. After -section 19(6) of the Housing Finance Act 1972 (rent allowances) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
(6A) A person is also a private tenant if he occupies a dwelling let to him by a co-operative, as defined in paragraph 8A of Schedule 1 to the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975 (housing subsidy where local authority housing functions are exercised by such co-operative and his tenancy would be a protected tenancy but for section 5(7) of that Act".
1A. In section 25(2)(c) of that Act'.

No. 37, in line 27, leave out paragraph 2.

No. 38, in page 24, line 8, leave out '1974' and insert '1975'.

No. 39, in line 13, leave out '1974' and insert '1975'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 25, line 32, at end insert:
'(4) The houses to which sub-paragraph (2) relates do not include houses occupied, pursuant to a contract of service, by persons employed by the local authority on the maintenance, supervision and management of houses and other property within the account'.
The provisions in Schedule 1 to the 1972 Act which stipulate what rates can be charged and what rates can be credited to the housing revenue account are being amended by paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 to the Bill in order to remove certain anomalies and to provide for hostels, which are to be brought into the housing revenue account from 1st April 1975.

The provisions of the Bill as at present drafted preclude an authority from charging to its housing revenue account rates on dwellings occupied as service tenancies by, for example, caretakers, wardens and essential maintenance staff. This amendment widens the provisions to include these categories.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 41, in page 26, line 21, at end insert:
'7A. In paragraph (a) of section 18(1) of that Act (special rules applicable to tenancies of registered and certain other housing associations) after "1972" there shall be inserted the words "or paragraph 21B of Schedule 1 to the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975"'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 26, line 21, at end insert—
'7B.—(1) The words in paragraph (a) of section 56(2) of that Act (grants for provision, improvement and repair of dwellings) from "or", in the second place where it occurs, to "purposes" shall be omitted.
(2) For paragraph (b) of that subsection there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
(b) an intermediate grant' in respect—

(i) of works required for the improvement of a dwelling by the provision of standard amenities which it lacks (including works such as are referred to in section 65(3)(b) below); or
(ii) of works required for the provision for a dwelling for a disabled occupant of any standard amenity where an existing amenity of the same description is not readily accessible to him, by reason of his disability;".

7C.—(1) In subsection (2) of section 65 of that Act (intermediate grants) for the word "An" there shall be substituted the words "Subject to subsection (2A) below, an".
(2) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
(2A) An application for an intermediate grant in respect of a dwelling for a disabled occupant may contain, as an alternative, in relation to any of the standard amenities specified as mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above, to a statement under subsection (2)(c) above, a statement that the dwelling possesses such an amenity but that is not or will not be readily accessible to the disabled occupant, by reason of his disability.".
(3) In subsection (3) of that section—

(a) for the words "A local" there shall be substituted the words "Subject to subsection (4) below, a local"; and
(b) in paragraph (a) the words from "except" to "apply" shall be omitted.



(4) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
(4) Where an application for an intermediate grant in respect of a dwelling for a disabled occupant contains a statement under subsection (2A) above, this section shall have effect, in relation to any amenity mentioned in that statement, as if for subsection (3) above there were substituted the following subsection:—
'(3) A local authority shall not approve an application for an intermediate grant unless they are satisfied that any existing amenity mentioned in the statement under subsection (2A) above is not or will not be readily accessible to the disabled occupant, by reason of his disability'"'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may discuss Government Amendments Nos. 43 and 46.

Mr. Kaufman: These amendments are intended to clarify certain provisions of the Housing Act 1974 dealing with improvement grants and intermediate grants in relation to disabled persons.
Last summer, during the concluding stages of the then Housing Bill, amendments were introduced in another place which were designed to extend the scope of improvement grants and intermediate grants in favour of disabled persons. Although the Government spokesman at the time expressed doubts whether it was appropriate to include in the system of house renovation grants specific provisions for meeting the special needs of disabled people, on the basis that these could be dealt with quite separately under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, the amendments eventually received the Government's support and were accepted. It has since become clear, however, that, although well-intentioned, the provisions as they now exist—they were brought into force on 2nd December along with the rest of the new grant provisions—are not sufficiently precise to enable local authorities to interpret them sensibly.
These amendments are intended solely to clarify the original position of the 1974 Act, and they do not alter the general intention of those provisions.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 43, in page 27, line 2, at end insert:
'9A.—(1) In the definition of "improvement" in section 84 of that Act (interpretation of Part VII) after the word "enlargement"

there shall be inserted the words "and in relation to a dwelling for a disabled occupant, includes the doing of works required for making it suitable for his accommodation, welfare or employment,".
(2) The following definitions shall be inserted in that section in the appropriate places in alphabetical order:—
disabled occupant" means a disabled person for whose benefit it is proposed to carry out any of the relevant works;
disabled person" means—

(a) any person who is registered in pursuance of arrangements made under subsection (1) of section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 (handicapped persons' welfare); and
(b) any other person for whose welfare arrangements have been made under that subsection or, in the opinion of the welfare authority, might be made under it;

dwelling for a disabled occupant" means a dwelling which—

(a) is a disabled occupant's only or main residence when an application for a grant in respect of it is made, or
(b) is likely in the opinion of the local authority to become a disabled occupant's only or main residence not later than the expiry of a reasonable period after the completion of the relevant works;

welfare authority", in relation to a dwelling for a disabled occupant, means the council which is the local authority for the purposes of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 for the area in which the dwelling is situated;'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Schedule 5

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 44, in page 28, leave out lines 11 to 14.

No. 45, in page 29, line 17, column 3, at end insert—'Section 80'.

No. 46, in page 29, line 27, column 3, at beginning insert:
'In section 56(2)(a), the words from "or", in the second place where it occurs, to "purposes".
In section 65(3)(a), the words from "except" to "apply"'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

1.13 a.m.

Mr. Scott: It had been my intention now to move "That the Question be not put". In any event, the point I wish to make is that simply because, both tonight and in Committee, the Opposition have expedited the Government's business


and given them the co-operation they required to get their Bill according to the time-table for which they asked, I hope the Government do not feel that we do not regard this as an extremely objectionable measure in many ways. We believe that in several ways the Bill is taking the public and those whom it affects for a ride.
The Bill was widely trailed by the Secretary of State and others as restoring local government autonomy in rent fixing. It has become clear as our discussions have proceeded, not least from those earlier tonight on Clause 2, that that is not the case. The Government are not restoring autonomy to local authorities to fix rents. In fact, they are now taking unto themselves reserve powers which, it may be, are for use only as a long stop.
Clearly, however, the Under-Secretary will be under considerable pressure from some of his hon. Friends who are totally, ideologically and in a doctrinaire way opposed to any increase in rents for any housing, whether it be in the local authority or the private sectors. No matter what burdens might be placed on landlords or on ratepayers, no matter what slums might be created in the process, they will always seek to oppose any increase in rents and will be constantly pressurising the Minister to use the long-stop powers he is taking in the Bill.
We know that local authorities feel that the reserve powers in Clause 2, if exercised, could cause havoc with their housing revenue accounts. The Government have refused to accept the arguments which would have placed the financial responsibility for any order under Clause 2 on the Exchequer rather than the ratepayer. All in all, we do not believe that the measure lives up to its promise of restoring autonomy to local authorities.
Secondly, the Bill continues the Labour Party's vendetta against the private landlord, both in its going back on the progress towards decontrol which was laid down in the 1972 Act and in the attitude it has taken towards ratepayers. We are grateful for the one small concession we got this evening. But the 12½ per cent. figure in the Bill which landlords will be able to recoup for any repairs they carry

out is wholly inadequate. The 12½ per cent. was set at a time when Bank Rate was 4 per cent. With a minimum lending rate now of 11 per cent., no one is able to borrow money for this sort of purpose at less than 12½ per cent. Yet 12½ per cent. remains the limit of the return that a landlord can get. I hope that the Minister will consider whether it will be possible to include in the cost of repairs at least the cost of borrowing for a period of three or four years.
In this measure the Minister is failing to appreciate that even if eventually he is able to realise his dream of all rented accommodation coming into social ownership, for many years ahead we shall depend on the private rented sector. We shall not serve anyone well, tenants or the nation, if we allow the stock of housing at present in private hands to deteriorate. That means that landlords must be able to get a fair return.
We ought to be setting out to maximise the use we can make of our housing stock, both public and private. The way in which the Bill will affect the private landlord will be counter-productive in that respect.
Finally, the Bill was trailed as repealing the Housing Finance Act 1972. It does not do that. In large measure the 1972 Act will be intact when this Bill reaches the statute book. Certainly one of the main arches of the 1972 Act, the mandatory system of rent allowances and rebates, will remain in existence. The Bill insulates the public sector of housing against the fair rent system. If one had believed the horrific forecasts about the likely movement of fair rents made by hon. Members now on the Government side of the House when the 1972 Act was passing through Parliament, there might just have been some justification for insulating the public sector from the system. We know, however, that the movement of fair rents has been much more modest than hon. Members opposite forecast at that time. Even in the City of Westminster, which the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) represents, we now hear that the average increase in rents registered during 1973 was 18 per cent. That covers at least a three-year period. There has, therefore, been an average annual increase of less than 7 per cent. In other words, the fair rents were


rising at well under the rate of inflation at the time. I do not believe in the circumstances that it is right or necessary that we should insulate the public sector from the fair rents system. I believe that there are considerable advantages in having a common system of rent determination in both public and private sectors.
What would a change from fair rents to reasonable rents in the public sector achieve? We have pressed the Minister several times in Committee and he has been remarkably coy about what "reasonable rents" are likely to mean in practice. During Second Reading of the Housing Finance Bill, the Secretary of State said that
the only proper and sensible principle is to set rents at a level people can pay without a means test and without a rebate."—[Official Report, 15th November 1971; Vol. 826, c. 54.]
Nothing in this Bill will restore that situation, and I am sure that the Minister will not pretend that it will.
We know that the percentage of household income which is paid on average in council rents is 7½ per cent. That was stated in a Written Answer by the Under-Secretary this week. No one could say that this figure is unduly high or harsh or is one which cannot be borne. On the question of rents, as in the autonomy of local authorities, the Government in this measure are playing to the gallery and they will achieve very little by the passage of the Bill.
Since the end of the Committee stage we have seen publication of a book by Mr. Berry called "Housing—The Great British Failure". Both the major parties must share the blame for that failure but I am sad that by passing this Bill on to the Statute Book the Government will be compounding rather than mitigating that failure.

1.22 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I do not accept all the strictures by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott). The Bill certainly has its faults, and I agree with him about the terrible mess that exists in the housing situation. I also accept that his party bears some of the responsibility just as much as the Government must bear responsibility for past records. Anyone who has tried to work or understand the

Rent Acts emanating from 1918 or even before lands himself in a complete and utter mess. The sooner we clear up that mess and have a radical rethink of the whole subject, the better.
I take heart from the fact that the Minister has said that he is to carry out some such reappraisal, and I hope that it will be a full-hearted reappraisal of the whole situation. There was a leading article in The Times last week on the question of the short-term lease, and bodies like Shelter have been putting forward suggestions which should be taken very much to heart.
I support the principle that the Bill is returning to local authorities much of the responsibility for dealing with their own affairs. That is absolutely correct. Although Clause 2 has been retained, I take the Minister at his word and I trust that he will not be implementing it. We shall, therefore, be supporting the Government in the Division that I presume is to take place on Third Reading.

1.24 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Latham: I make no apology for rising to put forward a few brief comments on on Third Reading. There should be no cause for complaint from my right hon. Friends if I do so, especially when one contrasts the situation which existed when the Housing Finance Bill was before the House and we spent many nights trying to resist it. There were 57 sittings to deal with that Bill in Committee and the whole process took about six months. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading that the Bill was cutting the throat of the Housing Finance Act. That Act has bled to death rather quietly, in contrast to its painful and protacted birth.
I cannot accept what the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) said. As one who served on the Committee dealing with that Act, he will recall that the points that were fought over at such length were the very ones of which the Bill rids us.
The Bill does what the Labour Party undertook to do for local authority tenants. I rise particularly to emphasise that it does not go as far as necessary for private tenants. I think that by a slip of the tongue the hon. Member for Chelsea referred to me as representing the City of Westminster. In fact I represent only


one-third of it. But I think that I represent the views of tenants in all three constituencies of the City of Westminster on this matter.
I complained on Second Reading that the Bill as it then stood would simply mean that private tenants in Westminster and elsewhere would be as badly off in three years with a Labour Government as they would have been if the Tory Government had stayed in office. All that was offered then was the three years of phasing—execution by instalments rather than quick guillotining. There have since been three additions to the Bill which help. I hope that the new clause which we debated tonight will have the effect that my right hon. Friend the Minister intends. Amendment No. 34 means that for one-third of tenants the increases they face will at least be delayed for a further year.
Most important are the reserve powers in the private sector. If they had not been introduced, those of us who wanted to make representations on behalf of tenants could have been correctly told by the Minister "I have no power to intervene." The door is now there. It may not be open. It may be only just ajar, but I and others will be knocking very hard on it to get my hon. Friend to use those reserve powers in proper cases in the coming months and year or two.
I have offered my hon. Friend many congratulations tonight. Will he please re-emphasise that the Bill does not attempt to grapple comprehensively with the private sector problem? There is a need for far more comprehensive legislation dealing with the private sector within a relatively short time. Such legislation comes under three headings: new criteria for determining rents in the private sector; a different composition of the rent assessment committees, which seem in the main to be landlord-biased; and a system of appeal or moderation, so that there is not the present inconsistency between one rent assessment committee area and another.
The Bill may not be much comfort to local authority tenants in my constituency, who are at the mercy of the City of Westminster to a large extent. I hope, however, that my hon. Friend will accept the thanks of the private tenants for the Bill, so far as it goes, and reassure them that he and the Government

will undertake a comprehensive review of private rents legislation and introduce a far more comprehensive measure as soon as they can.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Freeson: I assure the House that my comments will be brief. I do not intend to take up in detail the points made by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) despite his grumbling and rather carping approach. I accept and understand that he has to make some effort at this late stage because until now the Bill's proposals have had a quiet response from the Opposition. One day when we have time we shall try to probe, out of interest, why that should have been so.
I must state again, whatever reservations there may be about certain of the reserve powers in the Bill, that the Bill does its prime job—namely, to restore to local authorities a large measure of freedom of action which was destroyed by the Housing Finance Act 1972. It provides a subsidy system which will be directed towards getting more houses started and built as well as more houses purchased and modernised. It will provide a subsidy system which at the same time will help to restrain the impact of high rises in costs on rent levels. Whatever increases have to be introduced in future will be restrained to a relatively modest level by what we propose in the Bill.
I do not propose to labour such points in detail. We have been over this ground many times in the past. No doubt there will be a further opportunity to go over it again when the Bill returns from another place. For the future there is, as has been indicated on previous occasions, a very fundamental housing finance review now to be put in hand. It will go well beyond the conventional practice of reviewing only local authority rents and subsidy policy. That has been the main burden of finance reviews in the past. It will be a comprehensive review which will include a wide range of aspects well beyond the realms of local authority building and of rents and subsidies. The same may be said, although it will not be given the same urgency, in response to the last point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham). It will be the Government's


intention to undertake a review of the Rent Acts. I have stated that intention in the past year during the course of the legislation that we have been handling and I state it again.
I must make it clear that our first priority will take a lot of the resources of the Department's personnel. We hope to see the completion of the housing finance review during the next 12 to 15 months. Even that will be a tight timetable. It will leave a lot of work still to be done on an on-going basis. On the basis of such a review we shall be able to come to conclusions on future policy developments across the board. We shall be dealing with some of the points that have been put by the hon. Member for Chelsea, with which I have

to a degree some sympathy, although not in the way he has put them and not with the objections that he has put forward on behalf of his party.

When we have completed that sort of work we shall at some time—I cannot give a date—embark upon a review of the Rent Acts. We shall pick up the sort of points that have been stated once more by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington. I hope that the House will give this measure a Third Reading and that we shall be able to proceed to our beds.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 161, Noes 107.

Division No. 51.]
AYES
[1.33 a.m.


Allaun, Frank
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Millan, Bruce


Archer, Peter
George, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Armstrong, Ernest
Golding, John
Murray, Ronald King


Ashton, Joe
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Newens, Stanley


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grant, John (Islington C)
Noble, Mike


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Grocott, Bruce
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Bates, Alf
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Bean, R. E.
Hamling, William
Ovenden, John


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Harper Joseph
Park, George


Bidwell, Sydney
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Parry, Robert


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Horam, John
Pavitt, Laurie


Boardman, H.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Prescott, John


Booth, Albert
Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Radice, Giles


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Buchanan, Richard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Campbell, Ian
Janner, Greville
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cant, R. B.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Carmichael, Neil
John, Brynmor
Rooker, J. W.


Cartwright, John
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roper, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rose, Paul B.


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Judd, Frank
Rowlands, Ted


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Kaufman, Gerald
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Kinnock Neil
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Cryer, Bob
Lamborn, Harry
Sillars, James


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lamond, James
Silverman, Julius


Dalyell, Tam
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Skinner, Dennis


Davidson, Arthur
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Small, William


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Litterick, Tom
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Dempsey, James
Loyden, Eddie
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Doig, Peter
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Spearing, Nigel


Dormand, J. D.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Spriggs, Leslie


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Stallard, A. W.


Duffy, A. E. P.
McCartney, Hugh
Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)


Dunn, James A.
McElhone, Frank
Stoddart, David


Dunnett, Jack
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stott, Roger


Eadie, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
Swain, Thomas


Edge, Geoff
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Madden, Max
Thomas, Hon (Bristol NW)


Ennals, David
Magee, Bryan
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Evans, John (Newton)
Mahon, Simon
Tierney, Sydney


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Marks, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Marquand, David
Tomlinson, John


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Urwin, T. W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Meacher, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Ford, Ben
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Freeson, Reginald
Mendelson, John
Ward, Michael




Watkins, David
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


White, Frank R. (Bury)
Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mr. Thomas Cox and


White, James (Pollok)
Woodall, Alec
Miss Betty Boothroyd.


Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Woof, Robert





NOES


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hunt, John
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Biffen, John
Hurd, Douglas
Rathbone, Tim


Biggs-Davison, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Braine, Sir Bernard
James, David
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Brittan, Leon
Jessel, Toby
Rifkind, Malcolm


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Budgen, Nick
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Scott, Nicholas


Bulmer, Esmond
Kershaw, Anthony
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Carlisle, Mark
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Shepherd, Colin


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Shersby, Michael


Cockcroft, John
Lane, David
Silvester, Fred


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lawrence, Ivan
Sims, Roger


Cope, John
Lawson, Nigel
Skeet, T. H. H.


Costain, A. P.
Le Merchant, Spencer
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sproat, Iain


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Loveridge, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Durant, Tony
Luce, Richard
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Macfarlane, Neil
Stokes, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
MacGregor, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Elliott, Sir William
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Eyre, Reginald
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tebbit, Norman


Fairgrieve, Russell
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mayhew, Patrick
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Fox, Marcus
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mills, Peter
Trotter, Neville


Goodhew, Victor
Moate, Roger
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Monro, Hector
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Gray, Hamish
Montgomery, Fergus
Viggers, Peter


Grist, Ian
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hall, Sir John
Neave, Airey
Weatherill, Bernard


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nelson, Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael



Hastings, Stephen
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hawkins, Paul
Parkinson, Cecil
Mr. Michael Roberts and


Hayhoe, Barney
Pattie, Geoffrey
Mr. William Benyon.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments) be amended as follows:—
Line 41, after the word 'hours', insert the words '(or, in the case of an instrument or draft instrument relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, two and a half hours)'.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

1.42 a.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I wish to thank the Leader of the House and his colleagues for their co-operation and the consideration they have shown for the views of the United Unionists in the handling of this motion. We appreciate that the Leader of the House has done his best to ensure that there is an opportunity for at least one of us to make a brief comment on the

subject. I shall take only a few minutes to make an observation that, I imagine, will attract the sympathy of the House and the Government.
As the 20-Member provision in the Standing Order offers no real safeguard to Northern Ireland's 12 Members, the Government will not move to send Ulster legislative orders to Standing Committee except in consultation and agreement with us. The Leader of the House has indicated that he recognises our difficulty and he has taken account of our views, but we are not happy with the suggested arrangement that the request for an order to be taken on the Floor of the House should have to come from us. We welcome the assurance that the Leader of the House will do his best to meet our wishes. That understanding, however, might not always be observed, particularly by one of his successors.
However, perhaps we may discuss that matter in the context of the discussion that the Leader of the House has offered in his proposals for a Northern Ireland


Committee that were outlined in his statement today. I can give the assurance that my colleagues and I have no wish to employ destructive tactics in establishing the machinery or in its functioning thereafter, but it will be recognised that in the handling of Northern Ireland business in this House we are embarking on an operation of great complexity. Much of what we do will be in the nature of evolution and experiment. My colleagues and I will welcome the opportunity of playing our part through agreement and consultation.

1.45 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): May I say on behalf of the Lord President of the Council that we are grateful to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and his colleagues for their help in setting up this new system. I do not think we would disagree very strongly with anything he has said.
The point about the Orders Committee is that it should be essentially non-controversial, and if there are matters which are difficult they will be dealt with on the Floor of the House. We recognise that this can be done only on the basis of co-operation between all sides, and I can only repeat the pledge given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that we will have full consultation with everybody concerned, particularly the Northern Ireland Members. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is the view of the Lord President—although I accept that I cannot commit anybody else—that if there were matters which Northern Ireland Members wanted to be dealt with on the Floor of the House rather than in Committee, we would do everything possible to ensure that that would happen.
With that assurance, and with our thanks for the help which we have received from the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, we ask that this motion be agreed to.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments) be amended as follows:—
Line 41, after the word 'hours', insert the words (or, in the case of an instrument or

draft instrument relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, two and a half hours)'.

Orders of the Day — RACE RELATIONS AND IMMIGRATION

Ordered,
That there shall be a Select Committee to review policies, but not individual cases, in relation to—

(a) the operation of the Race Relations Act 1968 with particular reference to the work of the Race Relations Board and the Community Relations Commission; and
(b) the admission into the United Kingdom of Commonwealth citizens and foreign nations for settlement.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint persons with expert knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's Order of Reference.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report from time to time the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them and Memoranda submitted to them.

Ordered,
That Four be the Quorum of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.

Ordered,
That every such Sub-Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report to the Committee from time to time.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of the Evidence taken before such Sub-Committees and Memoranda submitted to them.

Ordered,
That Three be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee.

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House until the end of this Parliament.

Ordered,
That Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, Mr. Norman Fowler, Mr. Hal Miller, Mr. Eric Moonman, Mr. Dudley Smith, Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Tom Torney, Mr. Frederick Willey and Mr. William Wilson be members of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration.

Ordered,
That the members of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration nominated this day shall continue to be members of the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — WEALTH TAX

Ordered,
That Mr. Guy Barnett be discharged from the Select Committee on a Wealth Tax and that Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk be added to the Committee.—(Mr. Walter Harrison.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

Orders of the Day — BOURNEMOUTH (ROAD DEVELOPMENTS)

1.47 a.m.

Sir John Eden: I wished to speak tonight because I and by hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Cordle), who unfortunately cannot be present, have been made fully aware of the mounting volume of protest against the various road schemes now under development in Bournemouth.
Naturally I regret, as I am sure does the Under-Secretary, that this debate has to take place at such a late hour. None the less I know that he will give heed to what I have to say. He will, I am sure, understand that within the compass of the short debate allowed by the rules of the House I can only hope to give some impression of the views and feelings so strongly held by many of the residents of Bournemouth.
Feelings have been aroused in the main by two separate factors. First, there is the sheer scale of the developments and the dimensions of the change and upheaval which they are causing. Secondly, there is the frustration felt by anyone

seeking clarification about points of detail and by those who are trying to get a full explanation of what is happening.
People, especially those most affected, want to know not only what is going on but why it is necessary. What is the justification for it all? Why should it affect their property? Why must it happen now? That is the sort of question being asked.
Let me emphasise that I do not now or at any time suggest any impropriety or negligence on the part of the authorities' officials. Surveyors, engineers and planners have carried out their duties most thoroughly and conscientiously. The schemes which are now the cause of so much disturbance and anxiety have not been produced arbitrarily out of a hat. They have not been conjured up to satisfy anyone's ambition, prire or vanity. I know that they are the product of careful study and research. They owe much to the objective and impartial advice of experts. That takes up back over many years when the land use and transportation requirements of the area were fully considered.
All that work led up in 1966 to the "Bournemouth Town Centre Policy Statement and Map" which, among other things, recognised in the foreword to the published document, that
not only has Bournemouth one of the highest figures of cars per population in Britain but, in addition, it attracts large numbers of holiday visitors and also persons residing outside the town wishing to make use of the shopping and entertainments facilities available, an increasing number of whom own and wish to use cars.
Major changes were planned, and for this reason care was taken to give them maximum publicity. I quote again from the same document published in 1968:
Because of the fundamental importance of the proposals, the Council before taking any decisions arranged for them to be given as wide publicity as possible—the Council made every effort to take the people of Bournemouth completely and publicly into its confidence—publicity was given by the press, on radio and television, many meetings of local organisations were addressed and a public meeting held. It was made clear that suggestions and observations were welcome and those received were given detailed examination.
Wide support was given for the proposals and the alternative suggestions made were not such as to merit any material variation to the overall policy recommended and on 7th March, 1967, the Council formally adopted the proposals.


However, those proposals affect large areas of Bournemouth. There is, for example, the Castle Lane relief road, invariably referred to as route 16. One questions the wisdom here of planning a speedway which can result only in the channelling of large factory transport through areas of housing. There is to be the impact on Talbot Avenue of the Boundary Road—Redhill Avenue development scheme. There is now under construction a new junction at North-bourne, part of an overall Kinson bypass scheme. There are other schemes planned to traverse the cream of the residential area. There are the chaos and anguish caused in the Springbourne area where the whole community is being cut in two by Wessex Way. There is there the absurdity of what seems to be a mis-sited bridge leading from nowhere to nowhere, which I believe is now to be altered, but only after voluble public protest. There are the pressing demands generated locally by the residents to retain the Queen's Park roundabout, a proposition now fully supported by the district councillors of Bournemouth. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East, will be given an opportunity before long to raise this specific subject in a similar debate in the House.
Then there is the Gervis Road-Manor Road throughway scheme siphoning off traffic from Wessex Way ultimately to by-pass the Landowne and to take it through into the centre of Bournemouth. This has already caused a great deal of anguish and anxiety amongst the people who live in what has always been a quiet residential backwater but which as a result of new traffic signs is in danger of becoming a more significant trunk route than it should be. I know that here again certain changes have been made, but only after protest.
In addition to all this, great areas with fine buildings have been taken to make way for car parks and other developments. The whole thing is a scene of massive upheaval. I know that these developments have all been carefully planned and prepared on the basis of the best possible statistics; I am even ready to accept that they are in the best long-term interests of Bournemouth of

the future. But my constituents and I are fearful lest, in our eagerness to meet a statistical forecast, we are tearing out too much from the heart of Bournemouth and risking too fundamental a change in the character of the town.
There are here immensely difficult issues to resolve. So far—or so it seems to my constituents—all the decisions favour upheaval and change. We must never fail to remind ourselves that when all the planning and publicity have ceased it is people's homes that are affected. When construction begins—when the bulldozers move in or when a quiet residential area is changed into a principal traffic route, as in the case of Gervis Road—it is the life and happiness of individuals that are at risk.
It is at this point—here I emphasise my main theme—that extra trouble needs to be taken. I referred to some aspects of the problem in a short debate in July 1968, when the reply was given by the then Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—the late Arthur Skeffington who, as hon. Members will know, was most sympathetic and understanding on matters of this kind.
People want to know the details of what is taking place. They want to have justified to them the upheaval to which they are subject. They want an explanation. It is no good placing some boring advertisement in a local newspaper, because either nobody sees it or anybody who sees it takes no notice of it. Efforts must be made to notify each individual householder. I hope that the Minister will underline to the officials in the various departments the need to take trouble to go out of their way to hold meetings and to make sure that the people know what is about to happen. They should not have to wake up one morning and receive the tremendous shock of suddenly seeing the development under way without having had ample forewarning. It is not enough to expect them to find out for themselves.
An example of what I am talking about is the Northbourne road junction scheme. I know of an elderly retired pensioner and his wife who have been living in a nearby bungalow for 16 years. The roundabout constructed in the area has


totally altered their view. They accept that these things must happen and that there is nothing they can do about it, but now they have heard that there is to be a whole new range of council house development—not that I have anything against council houses—between the roadway and their own boundary. They have tried to get information about it. They cannot. They have had people call at the town hall, but they cannot get information. I have written about it and I hope to find out what is to happen.
I have had a letter today from a Mr. Reeves, who writes about a planning application he made for land adjoining No. 5 Dorset Road. He was unable to find out anything about any new road or highway development. He inquired from the planning department and proper searches were made. None of these revealed any information at all. Then the planning went forward and my constituent committed himself to a whole variety of money-raising ventures, building contracts and so on. Only then was he told that part of the land was likely at some stage to be used for route 5. It is not good enough that people should have to go to such lengths to get information which officials should be going out of their way to provide. I hope that the point will be emphasised strongly.
Locally and at county level, councillors have been speaking up strongly for local residents. Councillors Mrs. Jeanne Curtis and Mrs. Jill Williams have given expression to people's views. Miss Shapiro and others have tried to make clear how strongly people feel. These schemes were prepared in an economic climate which was, alas, markedly different from that confronting us today. Local authorities must now cut back on expenditure. Major projects will have to be deferred.
Where practicable, where the degree of commitment allows, I hope that local authorities will call a halt at this stage to such developments, particularly to those secondary schemes being undertaken in preparation for further development which is decades away. It is unnecessary for them to proceed at such a pace now. I hope that in calling a halt to some of these schemes the opportunity will be taken to appoint an independent inspector who will look afresh at the whole picture in the light of the current economic situation

and question the justification for these schemes. If that can be done, I trust that on this occasion the views of the people most affected will be actively sought and heeded.

2.3 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I have listened to the points raised by the rt. hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden). While I have great sympathy with him in the problems he has raised—I am not unfamiliar with them in my own constituency—I ought to make it clear at once that these matters are essentially for determination by the responsible local authority, in this case the Dorset County Council.
With the cessation of specific principal road grants and the introduction of the new system of transport supplementary grants it will be for the county council, not the Department, to determine the future highway network and traffic management measures within the framework of its transport policy and programmes.
It may, however, be helpful if in the first instance I outline the background to transportation matters in Bournemouth so far as my Department is concerned. In 1965 a study team of technical officers of the principal local authorities then comprising the area of South-East Dorset, Bournemouth and South-West Hampshire was formed to study the planning and transportation problems of the area. The team produced its first report in 1967 which recommended policies on future land use and a transportation network which included a new primary road system.
The road network recommended was designed to provide a transport system based on the assumption that land uses would develop as forecast and public transport services in this area, particularly buses, would be maintained and expanded. The report assumed that, in addition to the new primary routes proposed, existing local roads would be maintained and improved by traffic management schemes where necessary and that additional car parking would be provided where needed.
For Bournemouth the report recommended that the town centre should continue as the major entertainment and


shopping centre of the area but that to overcome existing problems of traffic congestion and to allow for future growth the whole primary road system of the area should be reorganised by the provision of a network of new roads to form a town centre bypass. This new town centre bypass was referred to in the report as route 4.
The report also recommended a number of other new primary roads including a route to the north-east along Holdenhurst Road in order to link the town centre and new bypass with the Bournemouth spur road which leads to the A31 trunk road. This new route was designated route 3 in the report and is also known as Wessex Way.
There were also recommendations for new primary roads in the Poole and Christchurch area which, together with the Bournemouth recommendations, would provide a complete primary road network for the whole area. It was envisaged that all these primary routes would be dual carriageway roads of a high design standards. The report additionally made recommendations for new district distributor roads in the various local authority areas.
That land use and transportation study report was updated in 1970 and all the local authorities concerned accepted the conclusions reached, adopted in principle the policies recommended and approved the future action recommended in the study.
So far as my Department was concerned, the town centre bypass and the Holdenhurst relief road were considered as viable schemes in their own right. Stages I to IV of the bypass were included in the now superseded principal road preparation list as were stages 1 to 3 of the relief road. But, apart from some peripheral routes, it was not considered that the report provided sufficient justification for some of the inner primary routes envisaged.
In 1971 the Secretary of State invited the local authorities involved in the land use and transportation study to prepare a structure plan for the then South-East Dorset and South-West Hampshire area. This invitation was accepted and, in connection with the preparation of the structure plan, it was decided to carry

out a new transportation study in the area using the latest techniques available for evaluating all aspects of transportation which had not been available for the earlier study. Work on the structure plan and transportation study is now under way and is being undertaken by a joint team comprising Dorset County Council officers and a firm of transportation consultants. The final report on the transportation study is expected in the summer of next year.
The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that the objectives of the transportation study are as follows.
The first is to produce a comprehensive transportation plan of the study area for 1986, which will specify a recommended highway network, public transport system and parking facilities, together with policies for their operation and control. The second is to outline a programme of implementation between now and 1986 and to provide the data for programming and design purposes.
The third objective is to provide the basis for subsequent monitoring and updating of the transportation plan and programme by the local authority staff. Lastly, the objective is to provide the transport component of a structure plan evaluation for 1996.
The recommended road network put forward in the original land use transportation study for the late 1970s and onwards will be re-examined as part of the present transportation study and either reaffirmed or alternative proposals recommended.
The study will also have regard to those new roads which have already been provided or will be completed in the intervening period. It will then be for the county council to consider the report and decide how it should be implemented in the context of the county's transportation needs as defined in its transport policy and programme.
The programme submitted by the Dorset County Council for 1975–76 includes among other schemes a further stage of the town centre bypass and a scheme at the Fleetsbridge Junction in Poole, but, as I have said, whether these schemes proceed is a matter for the county council. What I can say is that the level of accepted expenditure for


transportation in the county in 1975–76 would permit them to do so.
I think it will be clear, however, from what I have said that future planning in the area will be based on a comprehensive transportation study, grant-aided by the Department; and the broad issues involved in future TPPs will be the subject of a continuing dialogue between my Department and officers of the Dorset County Council.
Turning to the specific points made by the right hon. Member, perhaps I should explain current policy on procedures for public consultation in particular. I have great sympathy with that point. In 1973 the Department introduced a new public participation stage designed to inform people about practicable alternative routes for trunk road projects and for obtaining their views about them. This involved the setting up of exhibitions and the provision of display material, relevant maps and documents to be made available to the public either at exhibitions or otherwise.
At that stage my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not believe that he would be justified in attempting to impose on local authorities in respect of their own road projects procedures designed in the different context of trunk road schemes. This is due in part to differing procedures under which local authority schemes are prepared, including the operation of the planning procedures and perhaps most importantly, the participation of local elected representatives in debate at various stages of development of road plans.
I hope that the right hon. Member can see the difference here. It must be

assumed that any local scheme is debated by the local authority and that local councillors and residents are aware of it. Again from personal experience, I know that not as much time is given to public debate as is needed to attract the required attention. One of our problems is securing public involvement at an early enough stage. Unfortunately, many people know what is going on only when they wake up and realise that it has already taken place.
However, my right hon. Friend has drawn local authorities' attention to the need to bear in mind, in the development of their schemes, the principles underlying the new procedure of giving the public information about practicable alternatives and the opportunity to express their views about them at an appropriate time. That was done in Circular 30/73, in which my right hon. Friend gave this advice to local authorities or drew their attention to it. Local authorities are well aware, now that it has been raised in so many cases, of the danger of not involving local people in their decisions. This is due not to wilful neglect but to the fact that councils probably believe that their public debates are sufficient.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to specific schemes in Bournemouth giving rise to controversy. These are not the direct concern of the Department but are very strictly a matter for the local authority. I am sure that on this occasion he will understand why I do not refer to those schemes.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Two o'clock.